The problem confronted by Papua, the easternmost province of Indonesia, is
structural, rather than developmental as perceived by the current government.
The creation of the Unit for the Acceleration of Development in Papua and West
Papua (UP4B) was also based on an assumption that Papua suffered from
developmental neglect and that its development should be accelerated to solve
the problem.
Such a technocratic view was proved to be wrong as shown by
the collapse of the Soeharto regime that was built on the “developmentalist”
ideology.
Last week, I had a chance to visit Jayapura, Merauke and Boven
Digoel, observing and talking with some experts and ordinary people about the
latest developments in Papua. My visit coincided with daily mysterious shooting
incidents, mostly in Jayapura. Intentionally or unintentionally, these random
acts of violence looked to be perpetrated to create a specter of terror that
would contribute to a climate of fear that has long characterized Papuan
society.
Political relations between the center and the periphery are an
old problem in this country. Following the end of Soeharto regime in 1998, the
format of center-periphery relations was renewed with bigger autonomy given to
regional governments. But the horror of disintegration, particularly among the
military elites, was the reason for a halfhearted decentralization policy, as
autonomy is given to the regency/municipality rather the provincial level of
government.
Apart from this problematic decentralization, the
post-Soeharto era was also marked by the Timor Leste partition in 1999, and a
peace agreement in the rebellious province of Aceh in 2005. After Timor Leste
and Aceh, Papua is now seen as the main problem of center-periphery relations in
the republic. Armed rebels grouped under the Free Papua Organization (OPM)
radically call for a separation from Indonesia.
Some argue that a
healthy dialogue is urgently needed between Papuans and the central government
in order to address the intractable tension and conflict in the province.
Dialogue is important but I would argue that it will not be sufficient. Apart
from the immediate problem of representation, a dialogue assumes the presence of
two opposite but equal parties. Such an assumption is unlikely to be accepted by
the Indonesian government.
As the basic issues in Papua are structural
rather developmental, I would argue that a new perspective should be proposed to
resolve the problem in Papua. From a structural perspective, the problem of
Papua is not unique. By seeing Papua’s problems as Indonesia’s problems we look
at the solution to Papua as a solution for the whole of Indonesia without any
exception.
A structural perspective views the problem of the society as
a result of structural injustices emanating from continuing economic and
political inequalities between the center and periphery. The central
government’s policies toward Papua have officially changed in the guise of
special autonomy, yet the structural injustices persist.
These injustices
are a problem facing not only Papuans but the majority of Indonesian citizens.
Structural injustices are rooted in the wrong assumption in the Constitution
that the state will unquestionably take care of the life of its citizens, but in
reality we continue witnessing the state’s failure to protect its citizens from
violence and the abuse of power.
What is currently happening in Papua is
only a reflection of the state’s failure to resolve the continuing problem of
structural injustices in this country. The difference between Papua and other
places in Indonesia, including in the capital city of Jakarta, is just a matter
of the degree of violence. In Papua the level of violence is higher than that in
other places as the latest string of fatal shootings strongly indicated. The
basic right of the Indonesian citizens to security protection from the state is
simply violated. The climate of fear and the insecurities felt by ordinary
citizens in Papua are growing unchecked.
From what I have witnessed,
today, both sociologically and demographically, Papuans can no longer be divided
into particular ethnic or racial groups. The movement of people, in and
out-migration in Papua, has occurred for centuries. The latest population census
(2010) clearly indicated the high level of in-migration into Papua.
Papua is in fact a pluralistic society, in which any attempt to
distinguish between indigenous and migrants is becoming more futile. Every day,
the number of people who move in and out of Papua is increasing as the number of
daily flights and weekly ships obviously indicate. While certain Papuan elites
and their organizations understandably try to reassert their claims about a pure
Papuan identity, such a move runs counter to the reality.
Cities and
urban areas in Papua have become the most pluralistic places, in which people
from different social and economic backgrounds mingle and interact. In such
urban settings, social tensions and conflicts normally occur, as people are
competing for economic and political resources.
It is the constitutional
duty of the state to protect its citizens from discrimination. Economic and
political fairness should be the order of the day, where the state has to act as
an impartial referee when tensions and conflicts arise between different groups
and people in society. Yet as we are witnessing these days in Papua, the
Constitution, which mandates the state to protect all its citizens, is simply
being violated.
The writer is a researcher at the Research Center for Society and
Culture, Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) and the author of Looking for
Indonesia 2: The Limits of Social Engineering (LIPI Press,
2010