Imlek festival a constructive portrayal of pluralism

Since acts of religious intolerance and the obstruction of freedom of religion have made national headlines, the public seemingly has lost sight of what pluralism really means.

This situation has been exacerbated by the government’s inability to prevent such outrageous incidents, let alone to provide effective solutions.

However, amid this bleak outlook on pluralism, there remains a glimmer of hope when one talks about Imlek or the Lunar New Year.

The Imlek celebration presents a valuable moment to evaluate the practice of pluralism in the country. The holiday has been promoted as a national celebration, in which citizens from various ethnic groups enjoy lion dance performances, paper lantern festivals and the red decorations that brighten the milieu of shopping malls across big cities as a manifestation of the merriment.

It must be acknowledged that the present atmosphere for Chinese-Indonesians, or Tionghoa, has been far improved in terms of the politics of recognition, compared to the days of the New Order.

Besides Imlek, the Tionghoa have experienced greater opportunities to get involved in political affairs. In addition, there are more Chinese-Indonesians working in sectors beyond the business sector.

Finally, the Tionghoa have now emerged as a generation that has the courage to fight against all forms of discrimination and oppression. One example was the attempt to condemn Chinese residences in the flood along the Cisadane River in Tangerang last year.

Despite positive achievements, as far as pluralism is concerned, the challenge is to maintain this progress and avoid a setback. Ethnic and religious relations are prone to political maneuvering
and fabrication.

 Take, for example, the New Order era when the Tionghoa were stigmatized as being “exclusive”, which consequently plunged them into an awkward position among other ethnic groups.

Exclusivity can take the form of discomfort in integrating or assimilating with other ethnic groups, and is reflected in the choices of friends, schools and domicile.

Theoretically, this condition could potentially slow down the establishment of better cultural understanding between the Tionghoa and other ethnic groups.

However, the exclusivity of the Tionghoa during the New Order era might well be explained from various aspects.

In forming inter-ethnic perspectives, common factors inform exclusivity such as of hereditary, identity and culture.

Apart from that, social and human capital is also known to help form exclusive behavior (Cornell and Hartmann, 1998). Socially and economically, it is more pleasant to interact with people of a common ethnic background due to common human capital.

Most important factors to be identified in such a case are “contextual factors”, which are known as “construction sites” that form this exclusive attitude.

It is undeniable that the construction of the political economy in the New Order era placed Chinese-Indonesians in marginal, inferior and discriminated positions, constituting an influential factor that invigorated tendencies toward exclusive behavior.

The “horrible practice” was shared as daily experience of the Tionghoa through a process of story-telling that was passed on from generation to generation.

We can argue that it is not an easy task to change the perceptions and negative experiences that generated exclusivity.

However, inter-ethnic relationships in this democratic era have apparently been improved.

Based on contextual and construction factors, exclusive behavior represents a rational choice. Tionghoa see past experiences, present experiences and cultural expressions as forms of “symbolic repertoires” to understand and elucidate the world and the country in which they live.

However, on the other hand, exclusivity also has theoretical roots in the rejection of other ethnic groups. This means, other ethnic groups or the “majority” do not yearn for “integration or assimilation”. It is quite ironic that such an attitude could be found in this pluralistic society.

To conclude, the ability of the Chinese-Indonesians to finally find their form of recognition and existence, e.g. Imlek celebration, is part of a struggle and not merely a given. It is a lesson learned for us all that pluralism needs to be upheld to maintain a society’s diversity and harmony. Within pluralism there is also a value of respecting a group’s uniqueness.

Exclusivity from others in this sense reflects the rights of people to be different. It is an individual and a group right and no one whosoever may interfere with it.

Pluralism is somehow “a big project”. With such a weak government, respect for pluralism is in fact in jeopardy. Therefore, civil society and religious groups must put forth continual efforts to promote actions of tolerance, trust-building and respect among various ethnic and religious groups to strengthen the foundation of ethnic relations.

Not least of all is the importance of driving pluralism as a national policy priority. It is obvious though that, from a macro context, strengthening pluralism remains a big challenge in a country facing such diversity. Gong Xi Fa Cai!

The writer is a researcher at the Department of Politics and International Relations, Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta.