Marco histórico

There have been a number of studies relating to conflicts in Indonesia. Some scholars attempt to explain, on a larger scale, why conflicts happen (e.g. Bertrand, 2008; Davidson, 2009). Research on this grander level maybe able to

Social Diversity and Conflict in Indonesia | 53 explain the reasoning behind conflicts using a quantitative methods, but it cannot sufficiently explain why conflicts do not always occur in some other places. On the contrary, some scholars focus on conflicts on much smaller scales (e.g. Robinson, 2002; Chauvel, 2006; Loveband and Young, 2006). This allows them to better understand the circumstances under which conflicts have arisen, but only at a smaller level. In particular areas, where political influence is dominant, the conflict tends to be attractive to social researchers from political point of view. Due to the difficulties in understanding the complexity of violent conflict in Indonesia, Bertrand (2008) suggests future study to approach within a similar group. On the other side of the discussion, local factors under-laid most of the conflict among communities (Barron et al., 2009). Purdey (2006) also noted the importance of understanding the reason for a social, cultural gap within an urban setting. The gap became a crucial issue in a numberof communal violent conflicts, with a clash in local perceived motives and levels, for example, incidents such as Poso, West Kalimantan, Ambon, Solo, and Central Kalimantan.

Figure 3.2. Typology of Conflict in Indonesia Sources: Developed from Colombijn and Linbald (2002)

Social Diversity and Conflict in Indonesia | 54 West Kalimantan experienced a long history of conflict within the community. Peluso (2006) notes at least two large conflicts which occurred in 1967 and 1997. Previous conflicts were between the Dayak people, the indigenous inhabitants, and the Chinese. This incident was associated with extended political war in 1965, which targeted most pro-communist people. Despite Indonesia’s strong connection with the China Republic at the time, the local Chinese people became the suffering scapegoat in West Kalimantan. This conflict was considered to be the only conflict against the local Chinese people at that period.

The later conflict happened in 1997 between the Dayak and the Madurese (immigrants from Madura Island, near Java). These two incidents had several similarities. Firstly, both had clear racial dimension. Secondly, in their different times, both the Chinese and the Madurese were at the forefront of the economy in the province. Lastly, the incidents coincidently took place more or less in the same area.

Solo, formerly named Surakarta, is a small city in Central Java. The violent conflict occurred in 1998, preceded by a long march of students demanding the former President, Soeharto, to step down. The crowd became larger and attracted more people and gradually became uncontrollable. As a result, violence soon erupted around the location of the protest. People started to loot and destroy buildings belonging to Chinese people. The rioters targeted some commercial sites (the symbol of wealth) and government buildings (the symbol of power). Although the conflict obviously involved different ethnic groups, interestingly, both sides – the rioters and the victims – denied that it was a speight of race-related violence (Purdey, 2006). The local Chinese population and local Indonesians argued that people in Solo live in harmony. Particularly the elites denied that the conflict had grounds in racism. This unanimity was dislayed soon after the incident; people were hand in hand helping each other across ethnic groups and neighbours expressed their support. The local Chinese population who fled away came back to the town not long after the conflict.

Social Diversity and Conflict in Indonesia | 55 Jakarta experienced big violence riot in 1998 during the economic crisis, but the violence in Solo was proportionally bigger due to the comparative town scales (Purdey, 2006). The violence was mainly targeted at the Chinese population. In line with this, anti-Chinese violent conflicts are unusual, and it was argued that it was a result of political turmoil (Panggabean and Smith, 2011). Researchers have been trying to explain how or why the incident happened, but none attempted to explain why a specific social group became the target. It is a contradiction of a clear, stereotypical pattern across the two incidents (Setiawan, 2004). The history of the town is noted for its several violent conflicts involving different socio-cultural groups (Taufik, 2011). Solo’s conflict has the same patterning of communal conflict as the other cities, but it appears among the more developed regions, as indicated by the Human Development Index (HDI) in Figure 3.3. Purdey (2006) concluded by indicating the necessity to understand why the social cultural gap remains and what the inter-group relationships are like within the city, using multiple approaches to define the complexity of the issues. The HDI extended the traditional measurement of development, which relied more on income, into a multi- dimensional measurement (Sagar and Najam, 1998). The HDI implies that there are issues of inequality among society, particularly between high and low levels of development (Sanusi, 2008). The issue of urban development appears when deprivation involves households and its settlements.

Social Diversity and Conflict in Indonesia | 56 Figure 3.3. Indonesia Human Development Index - Four Provinces Figure 1996 – 2008

Source: BPS (2010)

In summary, due to the complexity of the issues and the limitations of methodologies for this study, the research will examine the issue of conflict at smaller level, particularly the communal level. Although the research will not attempt to make wide generalisations, it will focus on some cases on a more general levelto better understand the circumstances surrounding the issues under scrutiny. This study will focus on three cases: Solo, Poso, and Sambas. Each case represents different major island which experienced conflicts at a communal level during the end of the 1990s up to the beginning of the 2000s.