Indonesia’s Rising Intolerance: An Economic Explanation of Why the Silent Majority Will Remain Silent

Acts of intolerance have been growing steadily over the past year or so in our nation; from horrible killings of Ahmadi citizens, never-ending disputes of church buildings, and lately the protests that led to the cancellation of Lady Gaga’s concert in Jakarta. Reknowned international media like Time, The New York Times, and even The Wall-Street Journal have written articles condemning them. Though it might seem that Indonesians are more intolerant than ever, many still believe Indonesia is just as tolerant, but the majority of people are silent while the small radical minorities are making all the headlines. Hence the term ‘the silent majority’.

I will make the case that the reason the silent majority will not speak up is simply because it is uneconomical for them to do so, at least as of today. Simple cost-benefit analysis could show why they will only stay inside their houses and condemn the acts of violence and intolerance only from Twitter and blogs instead of rallying against it at the Hotel Indonesia Roundabouts, much like anti-liberal groups did last March.

 The benefits of rallying in the streets in support of Ahmadis, Yasmin and Filadelfia Churches, or to protest the National Police’s impotence that led to Lady Gaga’s cancellation for the individual protester is relatively small, as it is shared among everyone in the nation that supports tolerance. However, the costs associated with rallying on the streets such as the heat, the time, the fatigue, and the risk of being attacked by radicals (we all remember the FPI-AKKBB saga in Monas in 2008) is borne solely by the protesters.

Now let’s look at the cost and benefits of the intolerant groups. Unlike their tolerant counterpart, they enjoy a huge sum of benefits of the intolerant activity/rally. They get to advance their indoctrinated view of the world and become heard. They might even derive utility from making life difficult for people who have different faith, believe, or ideology from them. Their risk of being attacked by anyone is hardly as much as the tolerant protesters, as even the National Police are now on their sides. Also, if the intolerant acts are of political or economic agenda for their leaders, they might also get some money or lunch-boxes as a reward for joining the acts. A very good deal considering most of the people engaging in intolerant  behavior in Indonesia are unemployed.

That last point about employment could also be a key reason in the two groups cost-benefit analyses. The tolerant population mostly have relatively higher earnings, which means that the opportunity cost of their time is higher. As a concequence, they might not find it worth while to go out and take their case of freedom and pluralism to the streets. On the other hand, the fact that intolerant Indonesians are mostly unemployed means that their opportunity cost of  engaging in acts of intolerant behaviour (and rallying to support it on the streets) is obviously much lower. Instead of doing nothing but playing chess among fellow unemployed, they go out and rally for a more paternalistic nation, possibly getting some money while they're at it.

All in all, this situation is purely basic political economics comparable to the reason why import tarriffs are in place in many countries. Tarrifs obviously make a lot of consumers worse off by forcing them to pay a few thousand Rupiahs more for imported goods to benefit just a few domestic producers. But although the benefits of no-tarrif for a consumer is only a mere few thousands, the benefit of the import tarrif for the domestic producers can be billions. The producers thus have a much larger incentive to lobby for the existence of the tarriffs. The consumers simply find it not worth while to lobby against them.

The case of intolerance in Indonesia is the roughly the same situation. For the many people, it is simply not worth it to try to advance their views and their support for tolerance, compared with the lower-income intolerant population.  That is why the radicals are much louder these days. And that is why the voice of the majority will never leave the social media and onto the streets.