(Prosiding International) THE IMPORTANCE OF ETHICS FOR ACHIEVING DEMOCRACY ON THE REGION LEVEL (An Overview of the Social and Political Conflicts in Tabanan, Bali in the Era of Reforms).
THE IMPORTANCE OF ETHICS FOR ACHIEVING DEMOCRACY ON THE REGION LEVEL
(An Overview of the Social and Political Conflicts in Tabanan, Bali in the Era of Reforms)
By: Dr. GPB Suka Arjawa
(Lecturer in the Sociology Department of the Faculty of Social and Political Science
of Udayana University )
Abstract
Democratization efforts undertaken by Indonesia began to appear during the fall of the New
Order in 1998. However, enforcement of the idea of democracy has still not been accomplished due to a
long transitional period, even until now. As with any transition, conflicts have arisen from that. The fall of
the political forces of the New Order and the emergence of the new regimes, have not only lead to
political and social conflicts at the national level, but also in local areas. In Bali, people have a different
understanding of democratization, giving rise to conflict. At the political level, the conflicts took place at
the time before legislative elections, in which one political party tried to retain its power and strength by
suppressing other parties. In the social context, democratization was implemented by destroying or even
by protesting without ethics at the time of the group meetings. These incidents occurred in 2003 and
2013, in the area of Tabanan Regency. This means that it happened only five years and fifteen years after
the fall of the New Order. A qualitative approach i.e. field research was used to analyze the incidents. The
applied research method is deemed to be more advantageous because it directly understands the matter up
to the grassroots level. The findings showed that in order to get the most out of the implementation of
democracy, it remains necessary to adhere to ethics, a commitment to develop democracy. This has not
yet occurred at the lower levels so that the exercise of democracy cannot achieved, giving rise to
conflicts.
Keywords: Conflicts, Democratization, Ethics
INTRODUCTION
Democracy has become the choice for Indonesia to rule the country. In fact, as a system of
government, it is not a new model in Indonesia. In the days of the Old Order, the Indonesian politics
emphasized the two principles of democracy, namely the liberal and the guided ones. The New Order era,
the government under President Soeharto put forward the so-called Democracy Pancasila (Kuntowojoyo,
1996: 27). It was a policy which was sociologically aimed to legitimize his administration, to show to the
people that this model best suited the character of the nation. President Sukarno declared guided
democracy because in his view politics at that time was still not able to run perfectly when liberal
democracy was applied and where political conflicts frequently occurred, whereas Suharto considered
that Pancasila as the proper or legitimate representation of the people of Indonesia. The democracy of
Pancasila was trying to maintain such representation in order to achieve national stability which was very
useful to support the development of the country.
The fall of the New Order regime resulted in extensive growth of opportunities for democracy,
which refer to the notion of democracy in general. This is not just the government of, by and for the
people, but democracy is realized through the freedom of opinion and broader disclosure. In the social
context, such model of democracy is actually the hope for the people of Indonesia because freedom of
speech sociologically had long been suppressed in the New Order era. Ideas, improvement efforts, as well
as public criticism had never been accommodated well previously, thus it created a sense of curiosity, a
restrained desire to criticize the government. The fall of the New Order regime in 1998 allowed people to
express critical ideas and opinions.
However, democratization that conceptually positive by nature, evidently did not make a positive
contribution to the socio-political context at the grassroots level. Democratization instead created a
negative impression with the emergence of many conflicts, both political and social conflicts at the
grassroots level. These conflicts were much influenced by the inability to demonstrate proper ethics to the
public. Besides, democratization was interpreted as a means to acquire greater autonomy; some had even
raised the discourse of a federal state (Syafiie, Azhari, 2012: 129).
In Bali, democratization actually raised a variety of problems that appeared to be anti-democratic.
At the political level, democratization led to conflicts between the political parties, where the previously
dominant party (Golkar) was subjected to a rampage by other parties. In contrast, the Indonesian
Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) gained momentum for retaliation to the pressures it had suffered in
the past. In the Tabanan Regency, the PDIP even seemed not to be rivaled by other parties, so that it
eventually resulted in conflicts with other parties, even though those parties have the same root, namely
the Sukarnoists. At the grassroots level, social conflicts also emerged because of politics. In the Village of
Greseh, Marga, there are social conflicts between the community structures due to political matters, and
triggered by unethical attitudes of the community members. Here, democracy is ironically applied in in a
feudalistic manner, such practices occurred in the New Order era.
Understanding the Principles of Democracy
Democracy is a statehood principle, not essentially derived from Indonesia. This principle
originated in Greece and emphasizes the concept of a people‟s government, i.e from the people, by the
people and for the people. To realize this, it needs significant social conditions. Among others, the
geographical proximity between the people and their government (with the leaders), requires emotional
maturity, ethics, and understanding of the rules of law. The geographical proximity between the
populations with their government geographically was only possible in ancient Greece. Aristotle based his
main investigations on the city state, and the position of its citizens (von Schmid, Wiratno, et al., 1980:
26). But nowadays, this closeness can be established through various means of information. However, the
emotional and ethical maturity can only be achieved in a matured community. This can be done by those
who have enough education, have been involved in a lot of discussions, have sufficient social contacts
and can act as role models. The maturity of law can also be accomplished by such a community. In this
way, democracy will contribute to providing a better direction in government. In this context, in order to
realize good governance, the people have to be involved in the participation and the formulation as well
as the implementation of policies for themselves.
Democracy in developing countries faces many challenges. This also applies to countries with a
multi-cultural population because each ethnic group has its own social life. The practiced tradition both in
solving the conflicts and ruling the country also exercises its own influence on the existing practice of
democracy. This is why the advancement of democracy in developing countries is still in the process of
development; it has also been found that after several conflicts, a specific form/model of democracy
developed in line with the demands of the country. The political transition seems to affect the still
immature process of democratization in Indonesia; this is reflected in unfair competition as well as in
power conflicts.(Nurhasim, 2005: 17). However, during the first decade of the reform, the political
transition in Indonesia is still perceived and also colors the socio-political conflicts that occur.
The Phenomenon of conflicts that occurred in the Tabanan Region (the case of Tabanan, Bali)
A. Conflicts between Political Parties
In the cases that occurred in Tabanan, democratization became the chance for one polical party to
dominate other parties. It occurred just before the legislative elections in 2003. However, much earlier,
around 1999, during the Presidential election, Bali also experienced serious conflicts in the political field.
The defeat of Megawati Soekarnoputri by Gus Dur in the Presidential election held by the People‟s
Assembly was responded by violence in Bali. The supporters of Megawati were outraged and reacted by
burning government offices in Tabanan Regency, destroying roads and cutting down trees at the roadside.
The Denpasar-Gilimanuk road that connects Bali with Java was filled with fallen trees that caused the
road to become impassable. This was one of the conflicts in the aftermath of democratization.
The political conflicts that occurred in 2003 showed the dominant efforts of one party towards other
political forces in Tabanan. Conflicts that occurred before the general elections had resulted in dozens of
cases, ranging from the destruction of homes, the dissolution of the party meeting, up to the blocking of
the convoys of political parties. This phenomenon horrified the people of Tabanan before the legislative
elections. It was recorded that the conflicts were with the most dominant political party in the district, i.e.
the PDI-P; for example the conflicts between the PDI-P with the Golkar Party. The PDIP with the PNI
Marhaenisme, and the PDI-P with the PNBK. These conflicts occurred throughout the territory of
Tabanan.
The Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) conflicts in 2003 with the Golkar Party were carried out
with the greatest intensity. Indeed, nationally, Golkar has changed its paradigm, such as removing or
changing the structure of the board of supervisors and becoming an open party (Efendi, et al., 2012: 150).
However, the conflicts with the Golkar Party in Bali were getting worse. They culminated in the ambush
of the Golkar convoy by supporters of the Democratic Party of Struggle as well as in the beating up of
Golkar Party leaders and the destruction of homes in West Selemadeg; in various places in Tabanan cars
of Golkar Party supporters were destroyed. The Democratic Party of Struggle conflict with PNI
Marhaenisme ended up in the dissolution of the board meeting as well as the destruction of the party's
name board. Acts of vandalism carried out by the Democratic Party of Struggle against the PNBP were
such as attacking cars and the symbol of the place of worship as well as the breaking-up of their board
meetings.
Conflicts with the Golkar Party, which took place five years after the reform in Indonesia, occupied the
most prominent place.
B. Social Conflicts
Banjar Greseh, a region located in the remote village of Tabanan, is located approximately 20
kilometers from the capital of regency, or about 35 kilometers from the city of Denpasar. A Banjar is
defined as a community of people who occupy a territory, which is structurally below the village. In Java,
„banjar‟ is identical to „neighborhood‟. A collection of Banjars forms a village. The people of Banjar
Greseh mostly work as farmers or builders and are hardworking people. At noon, the Banjar is virtually
deserted as most people go to work. Judging from the appearance of the houses, it indicates the social
status of the people.
However the conflict occurred in the area in 2013, caused by an act of the majority of members of the
people who destroyed the house belonging to a member of banjar , namely I Made Gunung. The house
was destroyed because I Made Gunung was regarded not agree with the Paruman (meeting at Banjar ), his
action was considered to be unethical due to leaving the meeting without permission. In the view of the
people, the attitude shown by I Made Gunung was too often causing aggravation. In addition, his another
unpleasant action was when he locked the fence of the local temple that made other members of the
people on Banjar Greseh angry, and they then damaged his house (Suka Arjawa, 2013).
One act of violence occurred in that area in 2013 when the house of a member of the Banjar was
destroyed by other locals.
This destruction clearly violated the rule of law, and was reported to the authorities. Although I Made
Gunung locked the temple, he had strong legal evidence, in the form of a land certificate confirming the
ownership of the temple. The end, as it turned out later, the people of Banjar Greseh apologized to I Made
Gunung and and welcomed him back into the banjar.
The investigation showed that politics had entered the Banjar Greseh region. At the time of the
nomination of the governor of Bali, funds had been provided by one of the candidates to develop the
banjar. In the opinion of I Made Gunung, the candidate who had provided the funds was to be elected, as
had been agreed. However, the other candidate was favored. This made I Made Gunung leave the meeting
or Paruman. Leaving the banjar‟s meeting without permission was met with scorn by the other members
and resulted in an outbreak of public violence which apparently had accumulated long before the incident.
Analysis: Democratization versus the Traditional Social Pattern
In the context of the culture of Bali, especially people who embrace the Hindu religion, the
conflicts in rural areas are related to public awareness; it ranges from mild to severe levels. Conflicts are
often triggered by the absence of a member of banjar on ritual occasions, mutual cooperation or works in
religious ceremonies. Those who are not present at these occasions will receive insinuations, a slight
warning in the community. Furthermore, they will incur a fine of goods or money, if they are not present
at the meeting. This is an intermediate-level of awareness. However, people are impervious to such
warnings, the last action will be in the form of punishment called kesepakang. Kesepekang means to be
excommunicated from social life in the neighborhood (Windia, Sudantra, 2006: 145). The kesepekang
could be: he or she is not greeted, not given the right to pray at the community temples, not even allowed
to use the local cemetery. These ways indirectly want to eliminate the existence of the persons concerned
because they are not faithful to the banjar. These sanctions do violate a sense of humanity. But if the
people exposed to this kind of sanctions have realized their mistakes, they will be welcomed back again
as members of the banjar (Sirtha, 2008, 33). The sanctions are seen as an awakening. These ways to
punish people like this are now beginning to be abandoned.
Another way to create a conflict is to disrupt the social position of the person concerned if he/she
is deemed not to behave in accordance with the interests of the community. In a cremation ceremony, for
example, the cremation tower or bade used for transporting a corpse to the cemetery is shaken and
destroyed by some members of the banjar. In this way, it does not only disrupt the social position of the
owner of the ceremony, but also to also insinuate the behavior of the deceased when he or she was still
alive. This will disrupt the social structure, or even to make it decline in eyes of the public.
Thus, social and political conflicts that occurred in the Tabanan Regency were actually a clash
between erroneous understandings of democracy concerning the solution of social problems in Bali.
Democratization is essentially an effort to give more people more opportunities to openly express their
opinions. However, the goal of democratization is to deliver positive results in the governance. It means
that the government should not be monopolized by one group or by single political force just as it was in
the New Order era. Disclosure allows for a balance of opinions and and that is why equilibrated results
were reached in the community. The collision that occurred was the result (of a clash) of a wrong
understanding of democracy.
Democracy as a form of freedom of speech should be practiced by the courage to speak. There
are two things that must be seen in this context. The first is the courage to act. Democracy is essentially
the courage to act and to express opinions. In the social conflicts that occurred in Banjar Greseh, where I
Made Gunung protested against the attitude of the banjar in discussing the election of the governor; it was
considered wrong to support a candidate who had not given any funds to the banjar. Therefore it should
be protested. At this point the protest by I Made Gunung had two benefits, namely that politics should
have consistency and fringe benefits because of the aid given by the previous candidate. That then banjar
was trying to manipulate the vote which is not a consistent attitude. Concerning the community, this
certainly is not a good attitude. However, democracy also has its ethics and procedures to deliver it. I
Made Gunung‟s conduct, walking out at the banjar‟s meeting, is not a good ethical attitude. Democracy at
grassroots level turned out to require ethics and manners. This then led to the conflicts especially with the
social culture of Bali which is still practiced in various places. Admittedly, the culture of violence was
practiced in many places in Bali in the past. Destruction of homes committed by unscrupulous members
of banja r was a result of the collision of interests. The destruction was a form of kesepekang, namely
exclusion of I Made Gunung from his own home.
However, in the context of democracy, this understanding actually can raise awareness; especially
when the elements involved in the government can perform well and are also able to put them to good
use. Utilization of legal institutions, for example, will raise awareness about the significance of
democracy, namely seeking all the potential to raise awareness within the community. I Made Gunung,
though he was regarded as marginal in behavior, took advantage of this moment to the fullest to raise
awareness in all. He reported the destruction of his home to the police and threatened to bring the incident
to justice. The courage to speak is a manifestation of the argument towards the public (Hardiman, 2009:
124), which can be called a public space. This space can be used in the media or by making a report to the
authorities which is then covered by the media. In the above case the law took action. Police arrested
several persons of the banjar . However, because such action was believed to undermine the banjar , the
final agreement was to reconcile the banjar with I Made Gunung.
Democratization essentially requires ethics and rules. This does not only apply to the top layer,
but also, and especially, to the bottom layers of society. The absence of a good understanding of ethics is
actually going to provoke a conflict. Aristotle also pointed out that ethics is part of the livelihood of the
country. It is also said that the virtuous prefers honor (von Schmid, 1980: 27). This is what allows
democracy to work well. In the case of the people of Bali, the culture of conflict in the community still
applies the conception of zero-sum conflict, i.e. the conflicts rule out each other. To raise awareness of
this, the law must act.
The phenomenon of political conflicts between political parties in Tabanan Regency in 2003,
occurred before the legislative elections and was the result of the same phenomenon. Conflicts occurred
because there was no good understanding of democracy and no proper ethical examples were given by the
politicians. Conflicts were more aiming to gain political advantages. It was apparent from the domination
of the PDI-P. This is consistent with one of the goals of the conflict, namely to gain the advantages of
politics, territory, and economy (Won Jeong, 2008, 24). These conflicts also appear as an attempt to
maintain its resources (Setiadi, Elly, M., Kolip, Usman, 2013: 65). Nevertheless, in Tabanan the party
was strong. However, in the context of Tabanan at that time, democracy was understood as openness of
action and expression. The freedom of action was even interpreted incorrectly, which showed that the
practice of democracy was not working properly. What emerged was a hegemonic and totalitarian
attitude. When the PDI-P supporters blocked the convoy of the Golkar party, the destruction of the
symbol, and houses of other parties, did not demonstrate democracy, nor an attitude of openness.
Democratization in Indonesia is meant to be the awareness to provide a competitive space against the
power of other parties; it is necessary for good ethics to deliver it. This was not shared by the politicians
in those years, so that conflicts frequently occurred. Law is finally able to provide stability, so that ethics
in terms of democracy is necessary in order to make this ideology run well. Many of the supporters who
came from the PDI-P were then arrested, and thus conflicts between the political parties were reduced.
Conclusion
Thus, ethics is needed to provide a positive space for the growth of democracy on the regional
level. Ethics is required by the politicians in daily life as well as (being involved) in politics, as for
instance during an election campaign. With this ethics, the true meaning of democracy will soon be
understood. Democratization is an effort to provide wider competitive opportunities for competitors.
In Bali, democracy without ethics actually may be in conflict with the culture of conflicts that
exist in society. Kesepekang culture, which attempts to isolate members of the community from their
neighborhood, may get into the political sphere. If this happens, then the conflict situation can be a zerosum conflict. Those who do not have ethics will be suppressed in politics; its form may be destruction of
houses.
The way to achieve these ethics is through law enforcement. These institutions must be strong so
that democracy can work well, and bring awareness to the community to be able to run a better
democracy as well.****
References
Effendi, Bahtiar, dkk. 2012, Beringin Membangun:Sejarah Politik Partai Golkar , Jakarta, Grafindi
Khazanah Ilmu
Hardiman, Budi, F., 2009, Demokrasi Deliberatif: Menimbang ‘Negara Hukum’ dan ‘Ruang Publik’
dalam Teori Diskursus Jurgen Habermas, Yogyakarta, Kanisius
Kuntowijoyo, 1996, „Agama dan Demokrasi di Indonesia, dalam Arfani, Riza Noer (ed.), Demokrasi
Indonesia Kontemporer , Jakarta, Raja Grafindo Persada.
Nurchotimah, Siti, 2014, “Perencanaan Partisipatif Musrenbang dalam Penyusunan Rencana Kerja
Pembangunan Daerah”, dalam Agus Pramusinto (ed.), Demokrasi dan Good Governance,
Yogyakarta, Institut of Governance and Public Affairs.
Nurhasim, Moch (ed.) 2005, Konflik antar Elit Politik Lokal dalam Pemilihan Kepala Daerah,
Yogyakarta, Pustaka Pelajar
Setiadi, Elly M., Kolip, Usman, 2013, Pengantar Sosiologi Politik, Jakarta, Kencana Prenada Media
Sirtha, I Nyoman, 2008, Aspek Hukum dalam Konflik Adat di Bali, Denpasar, Udayana University Press.
Suka Arjawa, GPB, 2006, “Konflik antar Partai Politik Pra-Pemilu”, Tesis, Universitas Airlangga
________________, 2013, “Penyelesaian Konflik Sosial di Banjar Pakraman: Studi Penyelesaian
Konflik sosial di Banjar Greseh, Marga, Tabanan,”, Penelitian, Universitas Udayana
Syafiie, Inu Kencana, Azhari, 2012, Sistem Politik Indonesia , Bandung, Refika Aditama.
Von Schmid, Wiratno dkk. (terj.), 1980, Ahli-Ahli Pikir Besar tentang Negara dan Hukum, Jakarta, PT.
Pembangunan
Won Jeong-Ho, 2008, Understanding Conflick and Conflict Analysis, Singapura, Sage Publications
Windia, Wayan, P., Sudantra, Ketut, 2006, Pengantar Hukum Adat Bali, Denpasar, Lembaga
Dokumentasi dan Publikasi Fakultas Hukum Universitas Udayana
(An Overview of the Social and Political Conflicts in Tabanan, Bali in the Era of Reforms)
By: Dr. GPB Suka Arjawa
(Lecturer in the Sociology Department of the Faculty of Social and Political Science
of Udayana University )
Abstract
Democratization efforts undertaken by Indonesia began to appear during the fall of the New
Order in 1998. However, enforcement of the idea of democracy has still not been accomplished due to a
long transitional period, even until now. As with any transition, conflicts have arisen from that. The fall of
the political forces of the New Order and the emergence of the new regimes, have not only lead to
political and social conflicts at the national level, but also in local areas. In Bali, people have a different
understanding of democratization, giving rise to conflict. At the political level, the conflicts took place at
the time before legislative elections, in which one political party tried to retain its power and strength by
suppressing other parties. In the social context, democratization was implemented by destroying or even
by protesting without ethics at the time of the group meetings. These incidents occurred in 2003 and
2013, in the area of Tabanan Regency. This means that it happened only five years and fifteen years after
the fall of the New Order. A qualitative approach i.e. field research was used to analyze the incidents. The
applied research method is deemed to be more advantageous because it directly understands the matter up
to the grassroots level. The findings showed that in order to get the most out of the implementation of
democracy, it remains necessary to adhere to ethics, a commitment to develop democracy. This has not
yet occurred at the lower levels so that the exercise of democracy cannot achieved, giving rise to
conflicts.
Keywords: Conflicts, Democratization, Ethics
INTRODUCTION
Democracy has become the choice for Indonesia to rule the country. In fact, as a system of
government, it is not a new model in Indonesia. In the days of the Old Order, the Indonesian politics
emphasized the two principles of democracy, namely the liberal and the guided ones. The New Order era,
the government under President Soeharto put forward the so-called Democracy Pancasila (Kuntowojoyo,
1996: 27). It was a policy which was sociologically aimed to legitimize his administration, to show to the
people that this model best suited the character of the nation. President Sukarno declared guided
democracy because in his view politics at that time was still not able to run perfectly when liberal
democracy was applied and where political conflicts frequently occurred, whereas Suharto considered
that Pancasila as the proper or legitimate representation of the people of Indonesia. The democracy of
Pancasila was trying to maintain such representation in order to achieve national stability which was very
useful to support the development of the country.
The fall of the New Order regime resulted in extensive growth of opportunities for democracy,
which refer to the notion of democracy in general. This is not just the government of, by and for the
people, but democracy is realized through the freedom of opinion and broader disclosure. In the social
context, such model of democracy is actually the hope for the people of Indonesia because freedom of
speech sociologically had long been suppressed in the New Order era. Ideas, improvement efforts, as well
as public criticism had never been accommodated well previously, thus it created a sense of curiosity, a
restrained desire to criticize the government. The fall of the New Order regime in 1998 allowed people to
express critical ideas and opinions.
However, democratization that conceptually positive by nature, evidently did not make a positive
contribution to the socio-political context at the grassroots level. Democratization instead created a
negative impression with the emergence of many conflicts, both political and social conflicts at the
grassroots level. These conflicts were much influenced by the inability to demonstrate proper ethics to the
public. Besides, democratization was interpreted as a means to acquire greater autonomy; some had even
raised the discourse of a federal state (Syafiie, Azhari, 2012: 129).
In Bali, democratization actually raised a variety of problems that appeared to be anti-democratic.
At the political level, democratization led to conflicts between the political parties, where the previously
dominant party (Golkar) was subjected to a rampage by other parties. In contrast, the Indonesian
Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) gained momentum for retaliation to the pressures it had suffered in
the past. In the Tabanan Regency, the PDIP even seemed not to be rivaled by other parties, so that it
eventually resulted in conflicts with other parties, even though those parties have the same root, namely
the Sukarnoists. At the grassroots level, social conflicts also emerged because of politics. In the Village of
Greseh, Marga, there are social conflicts between the community structures due to political matters, and
triggered by unethical attitudes of the community members. Here, democracy is ironically applied in in a
feudalistic manner, such practices occurred in the New Order era.
Understanding the Principles of Democracy
Democracy is a statehood principle, not essentially derived from Indonesia. This principle
originated in Greece and emphasizes the concept of a people‟s government, i.e from the people, by the
people and for the people. To realize this, it needs significant social conditions. Among others, the
geographical proximity between the people and their government (with the leaders), requires emotional
maturity, ethics, and understanding of the rules of law. The geographical proximity between the
populations with their government geographically was only possible in ancient Greece. Aristotle based his
main investigations on the city state, and the position of its citizens (von Schmid, Wiratno, et al., 1980:
26). But nowadays, this closeness can be established through various means of information. However, the
emotional and ethical maturity can only be achieved in a matured community. This can be done by those
who have enough education, have been involved in a lot of discussions, have sufficient social contacts
and can act as role models. The maturity of law can also be accomplished by such a community. In this
way, democracy will contribute to providing a better direction in government. In this context, in order to
realize good governance, the people have to be involved in the participation and the formulation as well
as the implementation of policies for themselves.
Democracy in developing countries faces many challenges. This also applies to countries with a
multi-cultural population because each ethnic group has its own social life. The practiced tradition both in
solving the conflicts and ruling the country also exercises its own influence on the existing practice of
democracy. This is why the advancement of democracy in developing countries is still in the process of
development; it has also been found that after several conflicts, a specific form/model of democracy
developed in line with the demands of the country. The political transition seems to affect the still
immature process of democratization in Indonesia; this is reflected in unfair competition as well as in
power conflicts.(Nurhasim, 2005: 17). However, during the first decade of the reform, the political
transition in Indonesia is still perceived and also colors the socio-political conflicts that occur.
The Phenomenon of conflicts that occurred in the Tabanan Region (the case of Tabanan, Bali)
A. Conflicts between Political Parties
In the cases that occurred in Tabanan, democratization became the chance for one polical party to
dominate other parties. It occurred just before the legislative elections in 2003. However, much earlier,
around 1999, during the Presidential election, Bali also experienced serious conflicts in the political field.
The defeat of Megawati Soekarnoputri by Gus Dur in the Presidential election held by the People‟s
Assembly was responded by violence in Bali. The supporters of Megawati were outraged and reacted by
burning government offices in Tabanan Regency, destroying roads and cutting down trees at the roadside.
The Denpasar-Gilimanuk road that connects Bali with Java was filled with fallen trees that caused the
road to become impassable. This was one of the conflicts in the aftermath of democratization.
The political conflicts that occurred in 2003 showed the dominant efforts of one party towards other
political forces in Tabanan. Conflicts that occurred before the general elections had resulted in dozens of
cases, ranging from the destruction of homes, the dissolution of the party meeting, up to the blocking of
the convoys of political parties. This phenomenon horrified the people of Tabanan before the legislative
elections. It was recorded that the conflicts were with the most dominant political party in the district, i.e.
the PDI-P; for example the conflicts between the PDI-P with the Golkar Party. The PDIP with the PNI
Marhaenisme, and the PDI-P with the PNBK. These conflicts occurred throughout the territory of
Tabanan.
The Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) conflicts in 2003 with the Golkar Party were carried out
with the greatest intensity. Indeed, nationally, Golkar has changed its paradigm, such as removing or
changing the structure of the board of supervisors and becoming an open party (Efendi, et al., 2012: 150).
However, the conflicts with the Golkar Party in Bali were getting worse. They culminated in the ambush
of the Golkar convoy by supporters of the Democratic Party of Struggle as well as in the beating up of
Golkar Party leaders and the destruction of homes in West Selemadeg; in various places in Tabanan cars
of Golkar Party supporters were destroyed. The Democratic Party of Struggle conflict with PNI
Marhaenisme ended up in the dissolution of the board meeting as well as the destruction of the party's
name board. Acts of vandalism carried out by the Democratic Party of Struggle against the PNBP were
such as attacking cars and the symbol of the place of worship as well as the breaking-up of their board
meetings.
Conflicts with the Golkar Party, which took place five years after the reform in Indonesia, occupied the
most prominent place.
B. Social Conflicts
Banjar Greseh, a region located in the remote village of Tabanan, is located approximately 20
kilometers from the capital of regency, or about 35 kilometers from the city of Denpasar. A Banjar is
defined as a community of people who occupy a territory, which is structurally below the village. In Java,
„banjar‟ is identical to „neighborhood‟. A collection of Banjars forms a village. The people of Banjar
Greseh mostly work as farmers or builders and are hardworking people. At noon, the Banjar is virtually
deserted as most people go to work. Judging from the appearance of the houses, it indicates the social
status of the people.
However the conflict occurred in the area in 2013, caused by an act of the majority of members of the
people who destroyed the house belonging to a member of banjar , namely I Made Gunung. The house
was destroyed because I Made Gunung was regarded not agree with the Paruman (meeting at Banjar ), his
action was considered to be unethical due to leaving the meeting without permission. In the view of the
people, the attitude shown by I Made Gunung was too often causing aggravation. In addition, his another
unpleasant action was when he locked the fence of the local temple that made other members of the
people on Banjar Greseh angry, and they then damaged his house (Suka Arjawa, 2013).
One act of violence occurred in that area in 2013 when the house of a member of the Banjar was
destroyed by other locals.
This destruction clearly violated the rule of law, and was reported to the authorities. Although I Made
Gunung locked the temple, he had strong legal evidence, in the form of a land certificate confirming the
ownership of the temple. The end, as it turned out later, the people of Banjar Greseh apologized to I Made
Gunung and and welcomed him back into the banjar.
The investigation showed that politics had entered the Banjar Greseh region. At the time of the
nomination of the governor of Bali, funds had been provided by one of the candidates to develop the
banjar. In the opinion of I Made Gunung, the candidate who had provided the funds was to be elected, as
had been agreed. However, the other candidate was favored. This made I Made Gunung leave the meeting
or Paruman. Leaving the banjar‟s meeting without permission was met with scorn by the other members
and resulted in an outbreak of public violence which apparently had accumulated long before the incident.
Analysis: Democratization versus the Traditional Social Pattern
In the context of the culture of Bali, especially people who embrace the Hindu religion, the
conflicts in rural areas are related to public awareness; it ranges from mild to severe levels. Conflicts are
often triggered by the absence of a member of banjar on ritual occasions, mutual cooperation or works in
religious ceremonies. Those who are not present at these occasions will receive insinuations, a slight
warning in the community. Furthermore, they will incur a fine of goods or money, if they are not present
at the meeting. This is an intermediate-level of awareness. However, people are impervious to such
warnings, the last action will be in the form of punishment called kesepakang. Kesepekang means to be
excommunicated from social life in the neighborhood (Windia, Sudantra, 2006: 145). The kesepekang
could be: he or she is not greeted, not given the right to pray at the community temples, not even allowed
to use the local cemetery. These ways indirectly want to eliminate the existence of the persons concerned
because they are not faithful to the banjar. These sanctions do violate a sense of humanity. But if the
people exposed to this kind of sanctions have realized their mistakes, they will be welcomed back again
as members of the banjar (Sirtha, 2008, 33). The sanctions are seen as an awakening. These ways to
punish people like this are now beginning to be abandoned.
Another way to create a conflict is to disrupt the social position of the person concerned if he/she
is deemed not to behave in accordance with the interests of the community. In a cremation ceremony, for
example, the cremation tower or bade used for transporting a corpse to the cemetery is shaken and
destroyed by some members of the banjar. In this way, it does not only disrupt the social position of the
owner of the ceremony, but also to also insinuate the behavior of the deceased when he or she was still
alive. This will disrupt the social structure, or even to make it decline in eyes of the public.
Thus, social and political conflicts that occurred in the Tabanan Regency were actually a clash
between erroneous understandings of democracy concerning the solution of social problems in Bali.
Democratization is essentially an effort to give more people more opportunities to openly express their
opinions. However, the goal of democratization is to deliver positive results in the governance. It means
that the government should not be monopolized by one group or by single political force just as it was in
the New Order era. Disclosure allows for a balance of opinions and and that is why equilibrated results
were reached in the community. The collision that occurred was the result (of a clash) of a wrong
understanding of democracy.
Democracy as a form of freedom of speech should be practiced by the courage to speak. There
are two things that must be seen in this context. The first is the courage to act. Democracy is essentially
the courage to act and to express opinions. In the social conflicts that occurred in Banjar Greseh, where I
Made Gunung protested against the attitude of the banjar in discussing the election of the governor; it was
considered wrong to support a candidate who had not given any funds to the banjar. Therefore it should
be protested. At this point the protest by I Made Gunung had two benefits, namely that politics should
have consistency and fringe benefits because of the aid given by the previous candidate. That then banjar
was trying to manipulate the vote which is not a consistent attitude. Concerning the community, this
certainly is not a good attitude. However, democracy also has its ethics and procedures to deliver it. I
Made Gunung‟s conduct, walking out at the banjar‟s meeting, is not a good ethical attitude. Democracy at
grassroots level turned out to require ethics and manners. This then led to the conflicts especially with the
social culture of Bali which is still practiced in various places. Admittedly, the culture of violence was
practiced in many places in Bali in the past. Destruction of homes committed by unscrupulous members
of banja r was a result of the collision of interests. The destruction was a form of kesepekang, namely
exclusion of I Made Gunung from his own home.
However, in the context of democracy, this understanding actually can raise awareness; especially
when the elements involved in the government can perform well and are also able to put them to good
use. Utilization of legal institutions, for example, will raise awareness about the significance of
democracy, namely seeking all the potential to raise awareness within the community. I Made Gunung,
though he was regarded as marginal in behavior, took advantage of this moment to the fullest to raise
awareness in all. He reported the destruction of his home to the police and threatened to bring the incident
to justice. The courage to speak is a manifestation of the argument towards the public (Hardiman, 2009:
124), which can be called a public space. This space can be used in the media or by making a report to the
authorities which is then covered by the media. In the above case the law took action. Police arrested
several persons of the banjar . However, because such action was believed to undermine the banjar , the
final agreement was to reconcile the banjar with I Made Gunung.
Democratization essentially requires ethics and rules. This does not only apply to the top layer,
but also, and especially, to the bottom layers of society. The absence of a good understanding of ethics is
actually going to provoke a conflict. Aristotle also pointed out that ethics is part of the livelihood of the
country. It is also said that the virtuous prefers honor (von Schmid, 1980: 27). This is what allows
democracy to work well. In the case of the people of Bali, the culture of conflict in the community still
applies the conception of zero-sum conflict, i.e. the conflicts rule out each other. To raise awareness of
this, the law must act.
The phenomenon of political conflicts between political parties in Tabanan Regency in 2003,
occurred before the legislative elections and was the result of the same phenomenon. Conflicts occurred
because there was no good understanding of democracy and no proper ethical examples were given by the
politicians. Conflicts were more aiming to gain political advantages. It was apparent from the domination
of the PDI-P. This is consistent with one of the goals of the conflict, namely to gain the advantages of
politics, territory, and economy (Won Jeong, 2008, 24). These conflicts also appear as an attempt to
maintain its resources (Setiadi, Elly, M., Kolip, Usman, 2013: 65). Nevertheless, in Tabanan the party
was strong. However, in the context of Tabanan at that time, democracy was understood as openness of
action and expression. The freedom of action was even interpreted incorrectly, which showed that the
practice of democracy was not working properly. What emerged was a hegemonic and totalitarian
attitude. When the PDI-P supporters blocked the convoy of the Golkar party, the destruction of the
symbol, and houses of other parties, did not demonstrate democracy, nor an attitude of openness.
Democratization in Indonesia is meant to be the awareness to provide a competitive space against the
power of other parties; it is necessary for good ethics to deliver it. This was not shared by the politicians
in those years, so that conflicts frequently occurred. Law is finally able to provide stability, so that ethics
in terms of democracy is necessary in order to make this ideology run well. Many of the supporters who
came from the PDI-P were then arrested, and thus conflicts between the political parties were reduced.
Conclusion
Thus, ethics is needed to provide a positive space for the growth of democracy on the regional
level. Ethics is required by the politicians in daily life as well as (being involved) in politics, as for
instance during an election campaign. With this ethics, the true meaning of democracy will soon be
understood. Democratization is an effort to provide wider competitive opportunities for competitors.
In Bali, democracy without ethics actually may be in conflict with the culture of conflicts that
exist in society. Kesepekang culture, which attempts to isolate members of the community from their
neighborhood, may get into the political sphere. If this happens, then the conflict situation can be a zerosum conflict. Those who do not have ethics will be suppressed in politics; its form may be destruction of
houses.
The way to achieve these ethics is through law enforcement. These institutions must be strong so
that democracy can work well, and bring awareness to the community to be able to run a better
democracy as well.****
References
Effendi, Bahtiar, dkk. 2012, Beringin Membangun:Sejarah Politik Partai Golkar , Jakarta, Grafindi
Khazanah Ilmu
Hardiman, Budi, F., 2009, Demokrasi Deliberatif: Menimbang ‘Negara Hukum’ dan ‘Ruang Publik’
dalam Teori Diskursus Jurgen Habermas, Yogyakarta, Kanisius
Kuntowijoyo, 1996, „Agama dan Demokrasi di Indonesia, dalam Arfani, Riza Noer (ed.), Demokrasi
Indonesia Kontemporer , Jakarta, Raja Grafindo Persada.
Nurchotimah, Siti, 2014, “Perencanaan Partisipatif Musrenbang dalam Penyusunan Rencana Kerja
Pembangunan Daerah”, dalam Agus Pramusinto (ed.), Demokrasi dan Good Governance,
Yogyakarta, Institut of Governance and Public Affairs.
Nurhasim, Moch (ed.) 2005, Konflik antar Elit Politik Lokal dalam Pemilihan Kepala Daerah,
Yogyakarta, Pustaka Pelajar
Setiadi, Elly M., Kolip, Usman, 2013, Pengantar Sosiologi Politik, Jakarta, Kencana Prenada Media
Sirtha, I Nyoman, 2008, Aspek Hukum dalam Konflik Adat di Bali, Denpasar, Udayana University Press.
Suka Arjawa, GPB, 2006, “Konflik antar Partai Politik Pra-Pemilu”, Tesis, Universitas Airlangga
________________, 2013, “Penyelesaian Konflik Sosial di Banjar Pakraman: Studi Penyelesaian
Konflik sosial di Banjar Greseh, Marga, Tabanan,”, Penelitian, Universitas Udayana
Syafiie, Inu Kencana, Azhari, 2012, Sistem Politik Indonesia , Bandung, Refika Aditama.
Von Schmid, Wiratno dkk. (terj.), 1980, Ahli-Ahli Pikir Besar tentang Negara dan Hukum, Jakarta, PT.
Pembangunan
Won Jeong-Ho, 2008, Understanding Conflick and Conflict Analysis, Singapura, Sage Publications
Windia, Wayan, P., Sudantra, Ketut, 2006, Pengantar Hukum Adat Bali, Denpasar, Lembaga
Dokumentasi dan Publikasi Fakultas Hukum Universitas Udayana