Papua remains “a
fire in the husk” (Kompas, March 23), which can explode at any time
if preventive actions are not taken immediately. Bloody incidents that
killed 11 military personnel and civilians in Tingginambut and Sinak last
month are evidence of this.
Papua is full
of contradictions. On the one hand, Papua — as sung by Franky Sahilatua —
is a “little paradise that fell down to earth”. It has three main sources
of capital that could be a major factor in accelerating the improvement
of welfare: plentiful natural resources, a rich and diverse ecosystem and
a relatively small number of inhabitants.
This
condition has been further strengthened by the transfer of huge funds
from the central government in order to execute the special autonomy
status of Papua. Since the enactment of special autonomy 12-years-ago,
the amount transfered to the region has reached Rp 30 trillion (US$3.08
billion).
On the other
hand, Papua’s potential has not given comparative advantages to its
people. The percentage of poverty in Papua is still above 20 percent,
much higher than the national average. Papua province’s Human Development
Index (HDI) rank is the lowest, while neighboring West Papua province is
ranked 29th out of 33 provinces surveyed in Indonesia.
Of great
concern is the fact that the majority of indigenous Papuans are still
mired in poverty and are marginalized. The life expectancy, schooling
years and health levels of indigenous Papuans are low. At the same time,
indigenous Papuans have been gradually displaced from economic centers in
urban areas.
This
contradictory condition will continuously trigger dissatisfaction and
conflict that will lead to demands for independence in Papua. Learning
from Aceh, Papua needs dialogue to resolve its conflict.
For a start,
efforts should be made to harmonize relations between the central
government and the groups representing various interests in Papua
relating to basic principles, objectives, goals, agendas, mechanisms and
stages, as well as the locations and facilitators of the dialogue (Tebay,
2012).
Sources of
conflict in Papua can be grouped into four issues (Indonesian Institute
of Sciences, 2009). First, the marginalization and discrimination of
indigenous Papuans through economic development, political conflict and
mass migration to Papua since 1970. Second, the failure of development
programs — especially in areas of education, health and the economic
empowerment of the people. Third, the contradiction of history and the
construction of political identities between Papua and Jakarta. Fourth, accountability
for past state violence in Papua.
In addition,
there are three interests of the Papuans as mandated in the Special
Autonomy Law, which has not been fully implemented by the government
(Ridha, 2011), namely: substantial interests regarding political,
economic, social and cultural rights; interests relating to the
recognition of the role of traditional institutions and the Papuan
People’s Assembly (MRP) as well as the establishment of a truth and
reconciliation commission and a human rights court; and the interests of
indigenous Papuans regarding the recognition of their existence and
cultural symbols.
Law No.
21/2001, which was subsequently converted into Law No. 35/2008 related to
special autonomy for the provinces of Papua and West Papua, has stated
that for the development of these two provinces — special attention is
needed for the empowerment and protection of indigenous Papuans as part
of affirmative actions. This should be considered a new approach in
accelerating development programs that bring prosperity to indigenous
Papuans and other poor people in both provinces.
So far,
development policy in Papua has been in favor of indigenous Papuans.
Governor, regent and mayor posts have been held by natives. There is a
quota system for staff recruitment in government offices, schools and
universities.
Many believe,
however, the success or failure of development in Papua is strongly
influenced by the policies and development plans that are sensitive to
the culture and geographical location of indigenous Papuans.
M.T. Walker
and J.R. Mansoben (2001) noted the diversity of indigenous Papuans was
closely related to socioeconomic patterns of adaptation of the population
in major ecological zones such as swamps, beaches, estuaries, lowlands,
foots of mountains, small valleys and high mountains.
Ecological
zones that affect patterns of adaptation are reflected in livelihood
systems, including technology and the division of labor system.
A good
understanding of this would be the basis for appropriate planning,
especially in an effort to involve the poor and marginalized in the
development process.
In the past,
the economic growth of Papua relied more on the mining and finance
sectors that only made a small contribution to the expansion of employment.
High economic
growth does not have a positive impact on improving the welfare of the
majority of indigenous Papuans who work in the agricultural sector and
have been abandoned.
It is a
necessity for the development of culture-based planning and the prioritization
of the agricultural sector, which is the largest contributor to
employment. These affirmative actions to improve the prosperity of the
majority of indigenous Papuans need to be done without forgetting other
social groups, including women who are marginalized in the development
process. This perhaps would be the first step to eliminate the “fire in the husk” that will
expectedly bring peace to Papua. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar