|
|
FOCUS: PORTRAIT
OF POST COMMUNAL CONFLICT IN CENTRAL KALIMANTAN
by Irine H. Gayatri, RIDEP
The Transmigration programme was only one of many types
of social engineering introduced by the Indonesian government
as part of their development strategy. Politically, under
the guise of the New Order, the economic programme has
focused heavily on how to accelerate the growth of development
facilitated by political stability. In elections, for
instance, no political parties anywhere ever challenged
the GOLKAR party. This was called the “mono-loyalty” to
the state and hundreds of thousands of public servants
from national to sub district level were compelled to
follow suit. Public participation was also weakened by
the national policy on local government under Law Number
5/ 1974. This law diminished the influence of adat leaders
and traditional institutions. The long time tradition
of ‘rumah betang’, symbol of community of
the Dayaks, no longer exists. Along with modernization,
the Dayaks were no longer able to utilize their “adat” land,
which fell heavily into forests concession lands.
This situation happened at the same time as the district
elections for the new Governor. The Governor must be
elected with the approval of Jakarta, while none of the
locals, except those with certain economic and political
interests, were familiar with their past performance.
Therefore, any approaches regarding economic and political
development in the regions relied heavily on the interests
of central government. Later, this created further significant
problems, especially after the implementation of Law
on regional Autonomy Number 22/ 1999 under President
Habibie’s administration. Under this new law, several
regulations were created. Two of the implications will
be touched on briefly to provide the context for understanding
the location of the conflict. The Law permitted regions
to regulate several issues including economic and political
issues. In regard to the economy, the law provides a
basis for the expansion of regional territories (spatial
expansions) thus enabling district municipalities to
manage self-generated income, arising primarily from
natural resources.
The location of the conflict, the District of Kutawaringin
Timur, has long been known for its vast forest resources
and highly valued timber. The district has contributed
significantly to the development of the province from
its timber industry and, during the crisis, illegal logging.
Since the government only allows the extraction of forest
resources for concessions began in the early 1970s, the
unfortunate locals have had to seek alternatives for
their economy. This ‘illegal’ sector was
said to be one of the sources of economic grievance for
the Dayaks, since almost all migrants, including the
Madurese were able to work for low payment in illegal
saw mills.
In 2000, after the “reformasi”, Central Kalimantan
conducted its first governor election. The election was
rumoured to be coloured by money politics, in which some
local and national business interests competed with each
other to win the hearts of provincial legislatures in
order to elect the governor who best matched their particular
political and economic aims.
Grievances
The fact is that the causalities of the conflict between
groups in 2001 cannot be placed solely on economic factors.
Rather, political and economic foundations are interlinked
and added to by sentiments aroused from stereotypes that
developed between the two groups during the conflict.
The Dayaks see the Madurese as aggressors and the Madurese
saw Dayak as lazy and able to be fooled.1 The combination
of the power struggle amongst elites at local levels,
and the interests of national actors to compete over
the extraction of natural resources further fuelled tensions.
2 Though not explicitly shown, direct relations between
particular political events such as the governor election
in early 2000 before the conflicts erupted, or the regime
changes from President Abdurrahman Wahid to President
Megawati in late 2001 3 also influenced the situation.
It is also important to see the root cause of the conflicts
from a cultural perspective, though not to place a dominant
emphasis upon it considering the cultural relativism.
Content
|
