The Jakarta Post, March 15, 2006
Entrepreneurs of conflict at play in Poso
Philips J. Vermonte, Jakarta
The most recent violent incident in Poso - the bombing of a Hindu temple on March 10
- was widely reported.
The choice of target was significant. It was intended to expand the conflict in Poso, a
conflict that has been perceived primarily as a one between Muslims and Christians.
Some maintain, however, that religion is merely being used as a galvanizing factor by
the warring parties.
Scholars have tried to analyze the various conflicts that have happened around the
country, such as those in Poso, Ambon, Sambas and Sampit. Most of the scholarly
works on conflict have focused on the big picture and root causes. While important,
such a focus tends to neglect one simple fact: A conflict never occurs naturally, but is
instead somehow activated by agents with various agendas.
In his seminal work Men, the State and War (1959), Kenneth Waltz argued that any
conflict had two types of cause: permissive cause and immediate cause. "Permissive
cause" refers to its general context - social, economic and political contexts. In this
regard, poverty and the unequal distribution of resources and power are the most
commonly cited.
However, drawing on the big picture of a conflict is not always sufficient. Ashutosh
Varshney (2002), for example, has shown that two different places that share similar
economic, social and political characteristics might experience different paths: One
may remain peaceful while the other may become trapped in a long and protracted
conflict.
This suggests that a more micro explanation is needed. Explaining the immediate
causes of a conflict provides an entry point for this. The immediate causes of conflict
include events during which long held grievances reach their boiling point. Such events
rapidly transform a latent conflict into an open and violent one. This transformation can
suggest that a facilitating factor, such as the presence of a "conflict entrepreneur", is
at work.
Conflict entrepreneurs are individuals or collectives who, using sermons, pamphlets
and other oral and print media, mobilize a sense of identity among members of a
particular social group. Once present, they use this identification to encourage conflict
between different parts of a society.
Conflict entrepreneurs deliberately create a strong in-group feeling that reinforces the
"us-them" identification. However, it must be noted that the term does not necessarily
suggest that conflict entrepreneurs seek personal or material benefits from the
conflicts in which they are involved.
In some cases, such as the conflicts in Ambon and Poso, conflict entrepreneurs may
exist in religious groups that need leaders to defend against attacks from other
groups. Therefore, a conflict entrepreneur may exist for a collective purpose.
As a result, community or religious leaders could be considered conflict
entrepreneurs. These leaders, through their speeches, are critical and galvanize the
sense of solidarity among people within their own group, as well as inflame the sense
of animosity toward their opponent.
In other words, to borrow a term commonly used in international relations, these
leaders serve as "securitizing actors" who convince their people that another group is
threatening the survival of their own.
The Malino agreements, which have laid important foundations to end the violent
conflict in Poso, acknowledge the important role these leaders can play to achieve
peace. But then why do incidents like the recent bombing continue to occur?
Stephen John Stedman (1997) suggested that in order to attain a long lasting peace
in a conflict area, state authorities must give special attention to the so-called spoilers
of peace -- those who believe that the results of peace negotiations threaten their own
power, world view and interest. They might use violence to undermine attempts to
achieve peace.
It seems that it was these spoilers of peace who carried out the bombing in Poso a
few days ago. There might be elements within the warring parties in the conflict who
are dissatisfied with the outcome of the peace process. These sorts of elements are
highly likely to obstruct the peace process, either independently or with assistance
from outside the warring parties.
To deal with this, according to Stedman, state authorities need to fully understand
that all parties involved in a conflict seek three things: Greater protection of their
interests, fairness and justice, and recognition of their position.
Therefore, to better deal with the conflict in Poso, the authorities, both at the national
and local level, need to continuously address the concerns of all parties in the conflict
in a more delicate way. This means that if the authorities are to exercise their power
to implement the peace agreement, it must be based on a sound and balanced
judgment of the situation.
The writer is a researcher at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Jakarta and a graduate student at the Department of Political Science, Northern
Illinois University, U.S.
All contents copyright © of The Jakarta Post.
|
