A Shift of Expression On The Narrative of Merdeka
Rudi Kurniawan Dahlan, Juli 2020
The alleged racist incident that occurred in mid-August 2019 against some Papuan students in Surabaya seems to become a serious milestone for a better or worse of inter-government and inter-community relations in Indonesia. The unwanted moment led to a series of bloody demonstrations and the destruction of public facilities, including individual and government properties.
Until September 2019, a series of rallies even continued to occur in various cities in Papua. Even though debatable, whether they were genuine or engineered, they are indeed widely supported by almost the whole Papuan society. Men and women, children, and adults participated in a blast of protest.
The narrative that the West Papua region, consisting of Papua and West Papua provinces, needs to soon separate from Indonesia appeared conspicuously the rallies. The Morning Star flag was raised in many places. People were shouting “Merdeka” which hinting their want for independence for West Papua and demand for a referendum.
The rallies drew broad support from the grassroots of Papuans from all over the region. They included those from the mountainous areas. As you read elsewhere, too, it attracted international attention to push the government to have a serious talk over any other issues in Papua.
What the international community’s awareness of the issues of Papua and Indonesia indeed escalated. They saw the protests were the expression of the indigenous people there feeling uncomfortable under the rule of the Indonesia Government. Due to arguably poor public communication from the government, the world, unfortunately, though, overlooks the fact that the alleged perpetrators have been arrested and given sanction according to the existing regulation.
Actors and narrative of Merdeka
In that sense, the government should have seen this unfortunate event as something very serious to handle. The Surabaya incident, regardless of being legally handled (and yet poorly communicated), grew to become an international highlight, involving many layers of public. Thus, there were two important conditions of the event that should be considered carefully, especially when similar events would emerge in the future.
First, it is imperative to understand the actors in the protests. Protesters of such Papua’s issues are not from the elite layer of the society but now have included those of the grassroots level. They are ordinary, young unarmed Papuan civilians. Such protest participation has become wider than before. The participation of young people, older men and women, and even the underage is something serious to address because it shows that the issues have touched (or stung) almost all layers of the society. It means that from now on, the government can never take the issue of Papua lightly, ever.
Second, these grassroots have consistently carried the narrative of Merdeka or independence. The government, of course, understood literally and consciously the term of Merdeka in protesters’ minds that it is a political act willing to separate the region from Indonesia. So whatever problem they were facing, they felt this was a result of their living under the ‘Jakarta’ government. Yes, this Merdeka contains a political essence that has a negative connotation in the government’s mind.
To this end, the government should see those conditions as an impetus to contemplate, on how to define and act towards any Papuan issue better. Calming down the public anger and stopping the wider involvement of society in the act of protest in the future should be a focus.
Of course, they cannot be done unless the government urges themselves to figure out solutions for at least the most critical issues, according to Papuans, like the clarity over the handling of some serious human rights violations in the past. Indeed, blaming the poor situation in West Papua on the unwillingness of society the society to advance would just draw of much anger of the Papuans, which could lead them to justify further their uncomfortable feeling as a part of Indonesia.
These two aspects, the actors and the narrative of Merdeka, are important things, and it should be the government’s concern to restore the Papuans’ confidence and trust to the country represented by the government and its security apparatus. The government needs to make the actors understand that any issue could be addressed together collaboratively based on equal rights. The question is, who are the actors?
If we see in many cases, the young people there often come as the stronger drivers in any protest movement. They are widely considered and trusted as a critical group from society. The incidence in Surabaya shows how the discrimination affects to the growing concern of the young Papuans over their future with Indonesia.
Shifting the meaning of Merdeka
To anticipate the same protests in the future, the government needs to keep in mind that the narrative of Merdeka will continue to come up. Meaning independence, Merdeka now is understood widely as political separation from Indonesia. Whereas Merdeka could also mean the state where people can be fully free to act and express their concern on any issue, which is what is happening, of course, there are some limitations, in Indonesia including in West Papua.
Therefore the word of Merdeka itself should become a keyword that must be wisely and broadly understood both by the government and the Papuans. The Papuans could shift the meaning of Merdeka in a wider and more essential sense in their daily life. This undertaking, indeed, cannot be done without support from the government themselves. Thus they need to put the shift on their strategic plan.
Ideally, the Merdeka in political essence should not be used anymore when facing problems on issues such as social, economics, human rights, environmental, or also cultural matters. These issues should be addressed accordingly without making the public feel that when problems show up, separation should be the answer. As the saying goes, if your arm is ill, you would not want to cut it right away, but instead, first and foremost, find the best medication you can access to heal it.
Merdeka should be more broadly interpreted and understood, which is only not related to the political connotations of separatism. In any country, there would be harsh ramifications and implications for any actions and decisions on separatism, especially when it involves arms. This option should be avoided to keep peace in people’s life. Armed conflicts only make more casualties and fatalities, and often, the victims are innocent people.
Thus, the government needs to take the most practical, not ideological or dogmatic approach to the people of Papua, especially when it comes to a critical situation whenever people need to express their problems.
Firstly, they need to consider forming a dialog forum chaired by respected leaders from the government and the Papuan society. This forum should ensure that there is a safe atmosphere for both parties to raise questions and cast their demands and expectations. Secondly, the government must convince the Papuans that the government is willing to sit together in resolving social, human rights, economic, environmental, and cultural issues with the Papuans substantially, without involving the security approach from the very beginning.
Lastly, the above alternative, broad narrative of Merdeka, must be well-campaigned both among the government civil and military apparatus and among the Papuans, old and young. Both the government and Papuans should work collaboratively to understand that Merdeka means free from violence, prosperous in the economy, fairness before the law, dignified in humanity, and progress in their culture.
In longer descriptions, the five meanings of Merdeka are (1) the freedom from violence and fear as well as a tribute to human rights, (2) the optimism to achieve prosperity in economic life, (3) the presence of justice by law enforcement, obedience for public order, and security in society, (4) the appreciation toward the equality of human dignity regardless of ethnic, religious, racial and gender backgrounds, and (5) the opportunity to improve and maintain their culture, religion, and customs that grow in society as a noble inheritance.
The five substances need to be continuously campaigned by both parties as they could become a strong driver in building peace towards a bright future of Papua. (*)
This piece fully represents the writer’s idea. It does not express any ideas or stances of specific institutions or organizations she/he works at or is affiliated with.
