Why Do Political Conflict Patterns in Indonesia Always Repeat?

 

Have you ever been considered old-fashioned because you enjoy studying history? People say, "What's the point of learning history when times keep changing?" It's true that humans continue to develop and change, but there's something fundamental that always remains the same, which is the human instinct for power. History isn't just a boring record of the past, but more like a laboratory that shows how humans behave in certain situations. Especially when we talk about political conflicts in Indonesia, patterns that occurred in the past can serve as clues to understanding what might happen in the future.

Let's look at two major events in Indonesian history such as the 1966 Mass Demonstrations and the 1998 Reform movement. Despite occurring 32 years apart, both have surprisingly similar patterns. It's like watching a remake where the story is the same, but the actors are different. Both events began with economic crises that made life difficult for the people, students took to the streets as the "voice of conscience," and ended with the fall of rulers who previously seemed very powerful.

If you pay attention, in both cases students played exactly the same role. They became a kind of "moral referee" trusted by society because they were seen as neutral from dirty political interests. Indonesian students themselves are viewed by society as a "moral force" capable of carrying the people's aspirations to push government institutions to pay more attention to public welfare. Why always students? Because they have access to education, time to organize, but haven't yet been entangled in the complex economic interests that working adults face.

The escalation pattern is also almost identical. It started with complaints about expensive basic food prices, developed into criticism of official corruption, then crystallized into demands for a change of president. The Tritura in 1966 and reform demands in 1998 had quite similar structures beginning with cleansing the government of corruptors, lowering commodity prices, and changing the political system. These two events occurred at different times, with different actors and in different spaces, but the pattern of events was the same, namely massive student demonstrations demanding the government step down.

Interestingly, the way Sukarno and Suharto responded to mass pressure was also almost the same. First, they claimed the demonstrations were orchestrated by foreign parties. Second, they used security forces to disperse the demonstrations. Third, they made half-hearted reform promises. Finally, when the situation could no longer be maintained, they stepped down gradually while still trying to influence politics through proxies.

This isn't coincidence. Historian Crane Brinton in his book "The Anatomy of Revolution" already explained that political revolutions have predictable stages, starting with state financial crisis, followed by mobilization of the educated middle class, increasingly radical demands, then system change or even regression to the old system.

Now, understanding this pattern is crucial for preventing future conflicts. Imagine if the current government knew that economic crisis plus public dissatisfaction could become a political time bomb. They could create an early warning system, so they could act before the situation becomes uncontrollable.

Unfortunately, Indonesia seems not to have learned much from this pattern. Just look, after 1966 and 1998, the same basic problems still emerge such as rampant corruption, high economic inequality, and weak institutions. So it's natural that the same pattern could potentially repeat with a different face.

If you observe Indonesian politics now, several elements from the old pattern are still visible. The same recurring pattern of cooptation, intimidation, and populist legitimation is still often used by politicians to gain and maintain power. The difference now is that social media has replaced pamphlets, but the way to mobilize masses and shape public opinion still follows the same principles.

The same applies to conflicts between community groups. From the SARA riots of the 1960s to current political polarization, political elites still like to use divide-and-conquer strategies. They exploit religious, ethnic, or regional identities for their political interests. The pattern is the same, only the packaging and platform are adapted to the times.

Civil-military relations also show a repeating pattern. The military often positions itself as a guardian of stability during crises, but eventually becomes a political actor that's difficult to control. We see this from Sukarno's era, ABRI dominance in Suharto's era, to the TNI's role in post-1998 political transition.

Why is it important to understand all this? Because by knowing and understanding the pattern, we can be better prepared to face similar problems in the future. For instance, if we know that political conflicts in Indonesia often start with economic problems, then involve student mobilization, and end with power changes, the government can intervene at certain critical points before it's too late.

More importantly, understanding the root causes that make this pattern keep repeating. If structural problems like economic inequality, weak oversight institutions, and identity politicization aren't seriously addressed, then the same pattern will keep repeating with changing players.

So, studying history isn't just about memorizing dates and names of figures. It's about understanding how humans behave in certain situations, especially regarding power. If you want to build a more stable and fair political system, you must first know why the old system always had problems.

History provides us with a kind of GPS for future political navigation. Without it, we're just wandering around aimlessly, potentially falling into the same holes repeatedly. In an era of political uncertainty like now, the ability to predict and prevent conflicts based on lessons from the past is a very valuable asset for national progress.

So, do you still want to say that studying history is irrelevant?