The Impact of Communication on the Future of Reconciliation and

Peacebuilding in Papua: Understanding the Meaning of Special

Autonomy in Papuan Perceptions

Handrini Ardiyanti

and Ilya Revianti Sudjono

University of Indonesia, Indonesia Department of Social and Political Sciences

Keywords: Special autonomy for Papua, Papua, West Papua, reconciliation, relations between central government and

provincial government.

Abstract: Communication is the key to reconciliation between divided communities because it can build or undermine

perceptions of shared purpose or connection. This research explores the future of reconciliation and peace

building between the central government of Indonesia and leaders of the province of Papua. The research

uses in-depth interview with the chairman and members of the Papua House of Representatives and the

Papuan People's Assembly in the work period of 2009 to 2014 to explore how Papuan legislators perceived

the central government introduction of Special Autonomy provisions for the province. The finding suggests

that the Papuan leaders see that central government only understands the issue of autonomy from their own,

Jakarta-based perspective. This understanding is acquired because of a lack of communication between

central government and leaders of the province of Papua. Therefore Indonesia’s central government needs to

perform dialogue for peacebuilding and facilitates discussion on the role of opinion leaders in peace and

reconciliation efforts and the effectiveness of two-stage communication in the discussion.

1 INTRODUCTION

The relationship between Papua and the central

government of Indonesia can be considered as a

serious political struggle. The struggle has drained a

lot of social, economic, political and cultural costs.

The problematic situation has taken place since

Indonesia declared sovereignty over Papua. One of

the efforts to end the struggle is by issuing a special

autonomy Papua policy (Yusman Conoras, 2008).

Indonesia's central government in the era of

President Abdurrahman Wahid or Gus Dur had

established Irian Jaya Province as a special

autonomous region. The policy regarding this matter

can be found in the Decree of People’s Consultative

Assembly, MPR RI, Number IV/MPR/1999, also on

Indonesia's Broad Outline of State Policy (or known

as GBHN) in the year of 1999-2004, Chapter IV

Letter G, Point 2. Following the mandate released by

People’s Consultative Assembly, Indonesia’s House

of Representatives approved and enacted Law No.

21 of 2001 on Special Autonomy for Papua Province

(Special Autonomy Law) as stipulated in the State

Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Year 2001

Number 135. Following that, on 21 November 2001,

House of Representatives Decree was approved. The

law marked the changes made Indonesian Central

Government in adopting new approaches to

addressing problems in Papua by prioritizing

security, stability, and social welfare (Musa’ad,

2011)

In the perspective of the central government, the

policy was released to promote regional

development especially in the four prioritized

sectors, which are the economy, education, health,

and infrastructure. The regulation for the special

autonomous region or province (hereafter referred to

as Autonomy) was created as a step to align Papua

with other areas in Indonesia as well as to strengthen

the protection of fundamental rights of indigenous

Papuans, as since the integration with the Republic

of Indonesia, their fundamental rights tend to be and

marginalized (Laurens, 2015).

There have been many studies on the Papua

problem. Papua as a special autonomous region,

according to the author, can be observed from

various perspectives. The following list is a

comparison list of research about the Papua special

autonomy:

1474

Ardiyanti, H. and Sudjono, I.

The Impact of Communication on the Future of Reconciliation and Peacebuilding in Papua: Understanding the Meaning of Special Autonomy in Papuan Perceptions.

DOI: 10.5220/0009930414741481

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Recent Innovations (ICRI 2018), pages 1474-1481

ISBN: 978-989-758-458-9

Table 1: Papers discuss about Papua’s Special

Autonomy

Reference Analysis Results

Katharina,

Riris, 2017

(Khatarina,

2017).

Analyzed the

formulation of

Papua’s Special

Autonomy

policy as

outlined in Law

No. 21/2001

based on

deliberative

public policy

theories.

The

implementation

of Papua's

special

autonomy has

failed to use a

deliberative

approach. The

application of

Papua's special

autonomy only

shows false

participation.

Furthermore,

the formulation

of Papua's

special

autonomy has

been made

without

Papuan's active

involvement.

Bhakti,

Ikrar Nusa

and Pigay,

Natalius

(2012)

(Ikrar

Nusa

Bhakti,

2012).

Finding the

Root of

Problems and

Solutions to the

Papua Conflict

(grounded

research)

The central

government’s

policy

regarding

Papua is very

inconsistent.

usa’ad,

.Abu

(2009)

(Musa’ad,

011).

Government

Structure and

Authority in the

Implementation

of Special

Autonomy in

the Papua

Province

reviewed by

using the

Contingency

Design Theory

(Randolph and

Dess 1984)

Gibson et al.

(1996) New

Institutional

Approach

(Robert E.

Godiri)

Papua Special

Autonomy has

resulted in the

structure and

authority of

government to

be the domain

of the trias

politica

institution.

Some people are still arguing that the

implementation of special autonomy of Papua has

failed. Member of the Special Autonomy Fraction of

the House of Representatives of West Papua,

Dominggus Sani revealed 47 reasons behind the

failure of Autonomy, or more widely known as

Otsus by the locals. Sani's statement about the

failure of special autonomy was based on the results

of his study of the Autonomy from the aspect of

jurisdiction. One of the reasons being mentioned is

the obligation of the local government to do a

consultation with the central government before

releasing a legislative product (Pasific Post, 2017).

The reason discussed above reflects that, despite the

effort to win Papuans’ hearts and mind, their voice is

still partly ignored by the government. Autonomy

itself is one of the ways to get a better understanding

of the Papuans, as it significantly affects

communication. In this case, perception and

communication are vital because communication is

central to many aspects of work in conflict and post-

conflict settings. Therefore, it is essential to

understand the perception of Papuan about the

Autonomy. After knowing Papuan’s perception

about special autonomy, the author used the

concepts of communication for peace to analyze the

future of reconciliation and peace building in Papua.

2 CONCEPT OF

COMMUNICATION FOR

PEACE

Efforts to achieve peace according to Shekinah

Jovan McCullum-Lawrence must really touch the

most basic aspects. Lawrence further argues that the

existence of the mediator is very important in the

effort to achieve peace. In competing arguments to

achieve reconciliation, both the mediator and the

parties to the conflict depend on the communication

skills they have (McCullum-Lawrence, 2014).

Therefore the concept of communication for peace

becomes relevant to be used as an analytical tool.

Julia Hoffman first introduced the

Conceptualization of Communication for Peace

(C4P) in 2014. C4P work has its roots in the

philosophy and practice of Communication for

Development. C4P is a potential starting point to the

concept of communication for peace and review the

development of ideas about peacekeeping and

building within the actor and other relevant actors,

paying attention to the role of communication and

media that has been carved out within their

activities. C4P inclined its focus on the role of

journalism and media representation of conflict

within communication science. According

Hoffman, C4P observes various aspects including

The Impact of Communication on the Future of Reconciliation and Peacebuilding in Papua: Understanding the Meaning of Special

Autonomy in Papuan Perceptions

1475

the effect of media coverage of on peace

negotiations, media development, journalism

education, post-conflict media regulation law, peace

journalism, "public information", effect on

audiences understanding, empathy, public opinion,

quantity and quality of the news, new media,

popular culture and representation of gender, 'race',

disability (Hoffmann, 2014).

Nevertheless, studies related to communication

for peace have been carried out before. One of the

examples of communication for peace reveals in a

study conducted by Kilonzo that uses an interactive

religious approach in communication. His study

finds that religious institutions have a forefront role

in a post-conflict situation to reconcile diverse ethnic

communities, and offer some lessons learned about

post-conflict peace communication (Kivinda, 2013).

Six years later, Mitra contributes to the

development of communication for peace by using

interpretative repertoire analyses. Mitra's study

shows a great deal of contribution by going beyond

the empiricist repertoires which governs the specific

practice and discipline in implementing

communication for peace. Based on his finding, the

researcher argues that approaches in communication

for peace are not as it seems to be. One should go

beyond the surface to find out a thorough

understanding in facilitating peacemaking dialogues,

hence should observe the perspective of the peace-

makers, journalists and the communication

professionals (Mitra, 2015).

Further thinking related to the concept of

communication for peace is the thought of Valentina

Bau. Bau expressed the idea of an inclusive peace

creation process which must begin with the

community. It was stated by Bau after seeing the

interrelationship between the three variables which

were interrelated, namely participatory

communication and civic involvement with the

reality of post-conflict peace (Baú, 2016).

3 RESEARCH METHOD AND

DESIGN

This research consists of an exploratory study carried

out using qualitative methodology with a case study

approach. Procedures for conducting a case study are

as follows; first, researchers determine if a case study

approach is appropriate to the research problem. The

second step is to identify their case or cases and

focused on a case or an issue (intrinsic, instrumental)

(Stake, 1995); (Yin, 2003). The data is collected

through observations, interviews, documents, and

literature study. In the final interpretive phase, the

researcher reports the meaning of the case, whether

that meaning comes from learning about the issue of

the case (an instrumental case) or learning about an

unusual situation (an intrinsic case) (Creswell, 2006).

The fieldwork was conducted in Papua. This

research aims to contribute a better understanding of

the ways to understand the impact of communication

in reconciliation and peacebuilding in Papua.

Specifically, through understanding the meaning of

Autonomy from Papuans’ perceptions. At the same

time, it lays the academic foundations for further

studies that aim to create more targeted designs for

communication interventions in peacebuilding and

reconciliation programming.

4 THE PAPUA HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES (DPRP)

As mandated by Law No. 21 of 2001 on the

Provision of Special Autonomy for Papua Province,

and based on Letter of the Minister of Home Affairs

of the Republic of Indonesia Number 161.81/1034/

SJ dated May 3rd, 2005, the Provincial DPRD of

Papua changed its name to the House of

Representatives of Papua (DPRP). Based on the

provisions of Article 6 Paragraph (4) of the Special

Autonomy Law, it is stated that "The number of

members of the DPRP is 1¼ (one and a quarter)

times of the total members of the Provincial DPRD

as regulated in legislation.” Hence, the number of

members of the DPRP Period of Year 2009 to 2014

was 56 person. Furthermore, in accordance with the

provisions of Article 37 Paragraph (4) of the House

of Representatives’ Procedure of 2009, the

composition of the factions in the House of

Representatives of Papua was arranged as follows;

Golkar Party with fifteen persons, Demokrat Party

factions with twelve persons, PDI-P Party with

seven persons, six persons were from PKS Party,

nine were from Pikiran Rakyat Party, and the rest

seven persons are from Papua Bersatu Party.

5 THE PAPUAN PEPOPLE’S

ASSEMBLY (MRP)

By the provisions of Article 1 Letter G Law No. 21

in 2001, the MRP is a cultural representation of

indigenous Papuans, who have certain powers in the

context of protecting the rights of indigenous

Papuans based on respect for customs and culture,

women's empowerment, and the consolidation of

religious harmony. Government Regulation No. 54

of 2004 on the Papuan People's Assembly mentions

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

1476

that MRP’s function is to give consideration and

approval in the formulation of regional policy, in the

framework of equality and diversity of life of the

people of Papua while also preserving the culture

and natural environment of Papua. Therefore, MRP

is not a political institution and government involved

three social elements to run the institution, namely

traditional leaders, women leaders and the religious

figure. The plan is to establish MRP as a capable

body to represent the people of Papua.

6 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH

FINDINGS

The Papuan legislators argued that the Central

Government did not wholeheartedly grant the

Special Autonomous Region to Papua. Central

government only granted the special autonomy fund

to the provincial government and did not give the

recognition needed by the local government. The

local legislators believed that they should be given

the authority to govern their province and should get

better assistance in accelerating Papua’s social and

economic development. Local leaders thought that

central government only consider their own

perspective when it comes to the implementation of

the Autonomy in Papua. It is because of lack of

communication between central government and

leaders of the Province of Papua. Papua legislators

thus encouraged the revision of the Law regulating

the Autonomy to meet the expectations of the

Papuan. Papua legislators also requested the central

government to initiate a dialogue process that would

include all Papuans, including those who support the

movement for independence for West Papua.

(Golkar, 2011)

From the interview result, we can also conclude

that all respondents who came from the DPRP

expressed doubts about the validity of the Act of

Free Choice (locally known as Pepera) which was

held in 1969. They considered it as one of the major

obstacles in the relationship between Jakarta and

Papua. As we know, the final result the Act of Free

Choice was accepted by the United Nations General

Assembly and following that West Irian officially

became the 27th province of Indonesia on 19

November 1969. The doubt arose because Pepera

was done by using the method of predetermined

delegation system in which the delegates decide

unanimously to join the Republic of Indonesia on 15

August 1969. (Golkar, 2011) (Party, 2011) (PDI-P,

2011) (Rakyat, 2011) (B.Watory, 2011)

Another legislator mentioned that the Autonomy

gives many problems to Papua, it is because the

central government only focuses on the distribution

of the Special Autonomy Funds without putting

much attention to the implementation of the rules

and regulation governing the Autonomy. Hence, the

fund is only circulated among the bureaucrats (PDI-

P, 2011). It means that the central government does

not seriously support the implementation of the

Autonomy itself.

DRP members also proposed that the regional

government should be elected by the DPRP because

as it is clearly stated in Law No.21 about Special

Autonomy that the head of local government should

only be elected by the DPRP so that the fund

allocated for the direct election can be further

assigned for the benefit of the people (PDI-P, 2011).

The obligation to consult all Papuan legislative

law products to the central government also becomes

a problem. A DRP member from the Demokrat Party

faction mentioned that consulting the draft of

Raperdasi and Raperdasus to central government has

always been a controversy since it contradicts the

local government’s intention to strengthen the local

legal instrument to support the implementation of

the Autonomy. The central government is said to be

only considering Indonesia’s condition as a whole

while the DPRD members try to formulate the draft

based on the real situation in Papua. The revision

given by the central government sometimes

contradicts the spirit of Autonomy. For example, the

case of a mutually agreed MRP, that there is only

one MRP. However, the central government actually

takes a decision which opposed the signed

agreement along with forming a new MRP (Party,

2011).

The respondents who are members of the DRP

from the Democratic Faction then affirmed the

formation of the MRP of the West Papuan, one

example of the Indonesian central government being

reluctant in the implementation of the Autonomy.

The informant mentioned as follows;

“There will be two MRPs, thousand people

demonstrations which result in the death of many,

meaning that it’s over.” (Party, 2011).

The informant further added that Autonomy is

the win-win solution for the central government and

the locals who want independence of Papua. At the

time of its release, the people of Papua disapproved

the Law No.21 Year 2001 as previously the Special

Autonomous Region status was given during

Suharto’s era but failed to be implemented properly

(Party, 2011).

The improper implementation of the Autonomy

can be seen from the current condition of the

education sector in Papua. During the hearing

meeting of the Papuan and West Papuan People’s

Assembly on 23 to 25 July 2013, it was revealed that

although the Gross Enrollment Rate (APK) in the

education sector in Papua reached 95% but in reality

The Impact of Communication on the Future of Reconciliation and Peacebuilding in Papua: Understanding the Meaning of Special

Autonomy in Papuan Perceptions

1477

numerous problems were still prominent. The

problems encountered including low attendance rate,

overcapacity of schools, low number of students

who continue education, high drop out rates, and

low literacy rates. These problems arise because of

the lack of supervision, lack of teachers and

problems of teacher’s placement, insufficient

infrastructure and facilities (Simbiak, 2013).

Another problem that must be communicated

openly according to the Papuan People's Assembly

(MRP) is the Act of Free Choice (Pepera) in 1969.

Just as the opinion of the DRP, MRP considers

Pepera 1969 to be a collective wound of Papua

which will continue to trigger protests and social

opposition from the Papuan. (Marey, 2011) (Awi,

2011)

According to respondents who are members of

the MRP and DRP, the obstacle to the validity of the

Pepera was strengthened in the Second Congress of

Papua. It was based on the results of the History

Search Commission which found several main

points related to the formulation of Pepera are

formulated, namely in Article XVII Paragraph D in

the New York Agreement. The article stipulates that

self-determination must be carried out by every

Papuan adult male and female who were the resident

of Papua at the time when the New York Agreement

was signed. This provision is not implemented

because self-determination is carried out by the

representative of each district in the Papua region

(Marey, 2011) (Awi, 2011).

However, in the view of the central government

of Indonesia, the issue of the validity Papua’s

integration into Indonesia has been resolved

properly. The central government believed that the

procedures which involved Papuan participation had

been implemented and the advice, assistances from

the United Nation had also completed the process.

Thus, The Act of Free Choice is not flawed and it

had been documented by the Directorate of

International Organization of the Department of

Foreign Affair ((MRP), 2013).

Therefore, the future communication and peace

building in Papua will be depend on the conflicts

experienced by the involved parties. The community

still strongly believe in the opinion of the leader of

indigenous community and religious group. Hence,

it is very important for C4P to include the role of

opinion leaders in the discussion, as observed in the

study conducted by Karadakal (2015) (al, 2015).

Therefore, in the future it is important for MRP

to invite the relate stakeholders and conduct a

dialogue with the figures who understand the current

situation and also the issues related to Pepera. For

this reason, the central government is expected to

provide a detailed and clear explanation of the

evidence that can prove the credibility of the central

government. Hence, able to convince the MRP about

the validity of Papua’s integration to Indonesia. If

MRP is convinced then the central government can

request MRP assistance to make a systematic

program to explain about the issue to Papuan people.

Likewise, the problems associated with the

implementation of Papua's special autonomy are

expected by Papuan leaders and communities to be

further deepened and clarified by the various aspects

of their expected achievements. By doing so, it is

expected that the reconciliation between Papua and

central government of Indonesia can be achieved

soon.

Thus the authors conclude that it is not enough to

observe C4P issues should be further observed by

using several other theories such as, the role of

elements as proposed by Kilonzo (2009), and the

discussion of interpretive repertoires initiated by

Mitra (2015). Thus important discussion is crucial in

the two-stage communication in C4P to make it

relevant to the real condition in Papua.

Therefore, as stated that the root of the main

problem of Papua is marginalization, discrimination,

including the lack of recognition of Papua's

contributions and services to Indonesia as stated in

(Ikrar Nusa Bhakti, 2012), then it becomes important

to place a Papuan opinion leader role consisting of

DPRP and MPRP as one of the crucial aspects in the

effort to achieve peace in Papua.

Therefore, in the long run the government needs

to build dialogue and negotiations towards

reconciliation. Gradually or simultaneously it is

necessary to seek dialogue spaces to prevent

widespread suspicion and mistrust, especially

between migrants and indigenous Papuans and

between the authorities and the community. The

gradual dialogue effort needs to be discussed with

leader opinions and involves active participation

from opinion leaders from Papua.

Thus the idea of involving active participation

from Papuan opinion leaders is in line with Bau's

idea that the process of achieving peace must begin

with the community. (Baú, 2016). The placement of

Papuan opinion leaders as one of the important

aspects in a series of two-stage communication

processes in an effort to realize Papuan peace must

be accompanied by a number of other important

things. Among the other important aspects is the fact

that the elimination of the identity of the Papuan

people, especially during the Trikora, UNTEA and

before PEPERA, is actually part of a process that

has led to the maturation of Papua's nationalism.

Therefore, the Central Government of Jakarta should

appreciate the demand for strengthening Papuan

identity, among others, by putting Papua's opinion

leader position as one of the important aspects that

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

1478

determine the efforts to realize peace efforts in

Papua.

The existence of Law No. 21 of 2001 concerning

Special Autonomy for Papua is the commitment of

the government and all the people of Indonesia to

adopt a new perspective in addressing various

problems that have so far colored the life of the

Papua Province, but until now it has been proven

that the settlement of Papuan is still far from

expectations. For that reason, the central government

has time to review various aspects that are

considered unsatisfactory from the law from the

perspective of the Papuan people by involving active

participation from Papuan opinion leaders in an open

dialogue full of togetherness and mutual

understanding.

Regarding the role of the MRP with the DPRP, it

has been running well in Papua. One example, when

MRP proposes with what is referred to as Decree 14

or SK14, the decision is supported by the DPRP.

The MRP's decision stating that the Governor and

Deputy Governor are indigenous Papuans, including

the Mayor and Deputy Mayor must also be Papuans

accepted by the DPRP. The MRP itself gets these

aspirations directly from community groups. The

relationship between the DPRP and MRP and the

community is due to the fact that the Papuan people

in general are inseparable from culture. In each

problem, they will always solve it with adat and

entrust their problems to the elites, both through the

DPRP and MRP (Katharina, 2011).

The implementation of the MRP's role with the

DPRP in voicing the aspirations of the Papuan

community needs to be further appreciated. In line

with the provisions in Article 122 of the 2009 DPRP

Code of Conduct which states that the draft Perdasus

that has been approved with the DPRP and the

Governor before being determined to be Perdasus

submitted to the MRP for discussion to get

consideration and approval, more appreciation must

be given. The consideration of the MRP which is a

form of agreement between the Papuan people who

always solve every problem that they meet in a

customary manner also needs to be adopted as one

of the provisions in every discussion of

reconciliation efforts in Papua. Therefore, it is

necessary to review the provisions of the 2010

Article DPRP Rules which have caused the MRP's

role to weaken.

With regard to reconciliation efforts, it is time

for the central government to open their ears to hear

what the Papuan people hope for. Various events

that are considered to be hurting the people of

Papua, such as when the DPRP came to Jakarta to

meet with the Minister very difficult, should not be

attempted again. Jakarta and Papua must sit together.

The government also has time to invite the Papuans

who reject Papua's special autonomy. The attitude

shown by the center so far which is afraid to open a

dialogue forum with those who reject Papua's special

autonomy should be eliminated.

At a time when Papuans showed an attitude of

refusal to engage in dialogue with the Center they

called Jakarta, various approaches taken by the

central government, such as those carried out in the

time of President Gus Dur, were exemplary. At that

time President Abdurahman Wahid or Gus Dur, who

as head of state officially apologized publicly to the

people of Papua for human rights violations

committed by the TNI in the past on a visit to Irian

Jaya on 1 January as well as formally agreed to

change the name of Irian Jaya to using the name

Papua.

Related to the material of dialogue, a common

understanding should be sought regarding the

referendum. If all this time the central government

considers the discussion of referedum to be taboo

because the stage has been exceeded in the previous

phase. But for Papuan leaders and people, history In

May 2000, for example, at the time of the Second

Papuan People's Congress and the Third Papuan

People's Congress in October 2011, there were still

demands for an independent Papuan state in federal

form. Not only that the issue of demands for

independence "Merdeka" and doubts about the

history of Papuan integration are still being raised by

the Presidium of the Papuan Council and the Papuan

Customary Council. Therefore, it is time for the

central government to pay more attention to doubts

about the history of disintegration of Papua into the

Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia by

explaining various facts and data related to history

that exist to traditional leaders, government figures

and the Papuan people continuously by prioritizing

the principle of parallel relations and partnerships to

achieve the same understanding of the same history

of Papuan integration between the two parties.

Therefore the central government has time to

make an inventory of various things that are

considered "taboo". In addition, the central

government must strive to create compromises

between the two parties in order to achieve

recalibration or re-frame the relationship between

Jakarta and Papua so as to create integration or the

realization of a force that binds and suppresses

differences between the two parties in order to reduce

uncertainty in a relationship. dialogic and striving for

more communication that seeks to achieve a common

perspective related to various things that have been

considered taboo by involving active opinion leader

participation. In turn, Papuan opinion leaders then

gave an explanation of the various results of dialogue

to the Papuan people so that the same understanding

The Impact of Communication on the Future of Reconciliation and Peacebuilding in Papua: Understanding the Meaning of Special

Autonomy in Papuan Perceptions

1479

was reached in relation to various problems that had

been the obstacle related to Papua's special

autonomy.

Thus the central government needs to do an

interpersonal approach to traditional leaders as well

as various opinion leaders in Papua. In addition, the

central government also needed to find opinion

leaders from Papua who were able to become

mediators such as the role played by Muhammad

Jusuf Kalla, who at the time of negotiations in

Helsinki served as Vice President during a peaceful

settlement between Indonesia and Aceh.

Another important step, the central government

must be able to maintain partnership relations with

Papua by communicating with Papua so that a

common understanding is achieved in the

community. By conducting dialogues by placing

Papua opinion leaders in equal positions with the

central government of Jakarta, there is a willingness

from the Central Government to understand the issue

of special autonomy in Papua from the point of view

of the Papuan people.

7 CONCLUSION

From the findings of the research on Papuan

legislative perceptions as part of the Papua provincial

government on their views on the Autonomy, we can

conclude that there is no intensive communication

between the central government and the provincial

government of Papua on the implementation of

Autonomy which has led to poor perceptions of

Papuan legislators. Therefore, it is necessary to

conduct a special and intensive dialogue to create a

better flow of communication between the central

government and the provincial government of Papua

is horizontal and continuous. This will significantly

affect the implications for the creation of

reconciliation and peace in Papua. The central

government should provide a complete explanation

and communicate on the various issues that are

questioned by the Papuan leaders.

Communication as the central process of human

interaction, a good communication is the root of

conflict prevention which eventually can result in a

reconciliation towards a more conducive and peace

condition. On the other hand, based on studies

conducted Kilonzo (2009) religious institutions have

the potential to communicate the message of peace.

Many of them can be used to develop the people and

help them to advance their community. As well as in

case of Republic of Indonesia, especially for the

benefit of the people of Papua itself.

From this study we can also draw the conclusion

that conflict resolution and reconciliation depend on

the conditions of the conflicted parties. Regarding to

the influence brought by the leader, it signified the

study on the role of leaders in the communication for

peace building in Papua is vital and relevant.

Looking at the interview result with the local

legislators, it seems that the central government

should open a discussion and build a better

understanding regarding the Autonomy. When the

local legislators and central government shared the

view then reconciliation and peace building process

can be brought into realization

REFERENCES

(MRP), M. R. 2013. Implementasi Otonomi Khusus Papua

dan Papua Barat Dalam Pandangan Cendekiawan

Orang Asli Papua. MRP: Jayapura.

al, K. e. 2015. Impact of Leadership Role Perspective on

Conflict Resolution Styles- a study on small and

medium sized entrepreneurs of Karnataka State in

India. Retrieved from

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2Fs404

97-015-0019-6.pdf

Awi, M. o. 2011, June 21. The Impact of Communication

on the Future of Reconciliation and Peacebuilding in

Papua: Understanding the Meaning of Special

Autonomy in Papuan Perceptions. (H. A. Sudjono,

Interviewer)

B.Watory, M. o. 2011, June 23. The Impact of

Communication on the Future of Reconciliation and

Peacebuilding in Papua: Understanding the Meaning

of Special Autonomy in Papuan Perceptions. (H. A.

Sudjono, Interviewer)

Baú, V. 2016, September 13. Citizen engagement in

peacebuilding: A communication for development

approach to rebuilding peace from the bottom-up.

SAGE Journals, Vol 16, Issue 4, 2016, 348-360.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1464993416663052

Bell, I., & Feith, H. a. 1986. The West Papuan Challenge

to Indonesian Authority in Irian Jaya: Old Problems,

New Possiblities. Asian Survey Vol. 26, No.5, 539-

556.

Creswell. 2006. Five Qualitative Approaches to Inquiry.

California and New Delhi: Sage Publication.

Golkar, M. o. 2011, June 20. The Impact of

Communication on the Future of Reconciliation and

Peacebuilding in Papua: Understanding the Meaning

of Special Autonomy in Papuan Perceptions. (H. A.

Sudjono, Interviewer)

Hoffmann, J. 2014, Feb 14. Conceptualising

‘communication for peace. Peacebuilding , 2, 2014

(1), 100-117.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2013.866461

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

1480

Ikrar Nusa Bhakti, a. N. 2012. Menemukan Akar Masalah

dan Solusi atas Konflik Papua: Supenkah? Jurnal

Penelitian Politik Vol.9, No,1, 1-18.

Katharina, R. e. 2011. Laporan Penelitian Otonomi

Khusus Aceh dan Papua. Jakarta: Pusat Penelitian

DPR RI.

Khatarina, R. 2017. Deliberative Formulation of Papua

Special Autonomy Policy”, . International Journal of

Administrative Science & Organization, Volume 24,

Number 2.

Kivinda, K. a. 2013. Managing Terrorism in the Horn of

Africa: A Case Study of Kenya. in A Research Project

in partial fulfilment for the award of a Master of Arts

in International Conflict Management, 95–107.

Laurens, B. W. 2015. Policy Implementation Of Special

Autonomy Funds: Case Study Of Education Funding

In The District Manokwari West Papua, Indonesia.

International Journal Of Scientific & Technology

Research Volume 4, Issue 04, 77.

Marey, M. o. 2011, June 21. The Impact of

Communication on the Future of Reconciliation and

Peacebuilding in Papua: Understanding the Meaning

of Special Autonomy in Papuan Perceptions. (H. A.

Sudjono, Interviewer)

McCullum-Lawrence, S. J. 2014. "Peace

Communication". Illinois: Governors State University.

Retrieved 2018, from

https://opus.govst.edu/capstones/4/

Mitra, S. 2015. Communication and peace: Understanding

the nature of texts as a way to resolve conceptual

differences in the emerging field. Global Media and

Communication.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1742766515606298

Musa’ad, M. A. 2011. Kontekstualisasi Pelaksanaan

Otonomi Khusus di Provinsi Papua: Perspektif

Struktur dan Kewenangan Pemerintahan. Jurnal

Kajian, Vol.16 No.2, 359.

Party, M. o. 2011, June 23. The Impact of Communication

on the Future of Reconciliation and Peacebuilding in

Papua: Understanding the Meaning of Special

Autonomy in Papuan Perceptions. (H. A. Sudjono,

Interviewer)

Pasific Post. 2017, Juli 07. Ada 47 Alasan Otsus Papua

Dinilai Gagal. Retrieved from

https://www.pasificpos.com/item/17868-ada-47-

alasan-otsus-papua-dinilai-gagal.

PDI-P, M. o. 2011, June 23. The Impact of

Communication on the Future of Reconciliation and

Peacebuilding in Papua: Understanding the Meaning

of Special Autonomy in Papuan Perceptions. (H. A.

Sudjono, Interviewer)

Rakyat, M. o. 2011, June 23. The Impact of

Communication on the Future of Reconciliation and

Peacebuilding in Papua: Understanding the Meaning

of Special Autonomy in Papuan Perceptions. (H. A.

Sudjono, Interviewer)

Simbiak, F. 2013. Pelaksanaan penbangunan pendidikan,

Jayapura. Majelis Rakyat Papua: Jayapura.

Stake, R. 1995. The art of case study research. Sage:

California.

Yin, R. K. 2003. Case study research: Design and method.

Sage: California.

Yusman Conoras, A. M. 2008. MRP Kitong Pu Honai.

Foker LSM Papua: Jayapura.

The Impact of Communication on the Future of Reconciliation and Peacebuilding in Papua: Understanding the Meaning of Special

Autonomy in Papuan Perceptions

1481