"Violence" is a term that we often hear, and generally has a connotation that tends to be negative. Referring to the book "Encyclopedia of Social Conflict" the term violence means cruelty, ferocity and mayhem. Violence itself can be said to be intentional or unintentional behavior with the aim of injuring another person. In a political context, political violence means an action carried out to achieve political goals. Political violence has several categories, including institutional, ideational and individual.
- Institutional
In the institutional explanation, the institution states that quality or the specific combination of these institutions is important in the occurrence of political violence. The emphasis can be on political institutions, such as states and regimes; economic institutions, such as capitalism; or social institutions, such as culture and religion. In addition, these explanations can be based on limiting or supporting arguments. It could be These institutions contain implicit values or norms explicitly encourage political violence, or limit human activity, thereby triggering political violence. An example of this type of institution is a presidential system, in a presidential system there is the possibility of increased marginalization, polarization, and conflict. In conditions like these, political violence can be a logical reaction when it forms other participation is discouraged.
- Ideational
While institutional explanations emphasize organizational impacts and patterns that remain deep encourage political violence, then ideational explanations focus more on the reasons behind the violence. ideational, what is meant is related to ideas. Ideas may be institutionalized---concepts rooted in an institution such as political or religious organizations---but often these ideas are not institutionalized, without real organizational base. The argument here is that ideas play a role important in political violence in the way they present a worldview, diagnose a series of problems, provide resolutions, and explain how to achieve it. Any or all of these elements may be associated with above justification violence.
Political violence is more likely to be associated with radical or reactionary attitudes, because each attitude views the current institutional order as bankrupt and unable to be reformed. . Therefore, what is important is not only the content of the idea but also its relationship to the domestic political status quo. Ideas that are seen as conservative in one context can be a source of radicalism or reaction, and perhaps violence, in another.
- Individual
Individual explanations center on the party who committed the violence. In a scientific perspective, the emphasis is on personal motivations that make people contemplate and carry out violence for political purposes. Scholars who study individual explanations of political violence typically follow one of two paths. The first emphasizes psychological factors, namely the conditions that encourage individuals to commit violence. These factors can be a function of individual experiences, or they can be shaped by broader conditions in society, such as levels of economic development or gender roles. Such approaches tend to concentrate on how people are driven to violence as an expression of desperation, a desire for liberation, or social solidarity. For example, some experts on religious violence emphasize the role of humiliation as a motivating force, the feeling that one's beliefs are actively marginalized and devalued by society. Individuals who are drawn to violence may also be isolated from the society around them. In this view, revolutionaries or terrorists see violence as a way to give meaning to their lives and may not care whether they succeed in achieving their goals or even truly understand their political goals.
However, the opposite approach rejects this view, and views political violence as a rational act, carried out by those who believe in political violence as an effective political tool. Strategy, rather than desperation, drives these actions. Political violence in this view is not an expression of deviance but a strategy implemented carefully by those who understand its impacts and possible benefits.
So far, we have discussed theoretically the classification of political violence, where the various classifications above have their own main focus of discussion. In institutional terms, according to this explanation, the quality or combination of institutions such as state, regime, economy, culture and religion can encourage or limit human behavior that triggers political violence, an example of this type of violence is presidentialism. The identification of presidentialism is said to be political violence because presidential systems tend to create a "Winner takes all" situation where the president and his party have great power. This can leave other groups feeling marginalized and without channels to participate in the system. In addition, because there is direct competition for the presidency, this system often triggers high polarization between supporters of different candidates. This polarization can exacerbate divisions in society.
So what about Indonesia, is there political violence in Indonesia? As explained above, the presidential system adopted by Indonesia has the potential to trigger political violence. This is due to the nature of presidentialism which tends to create a "winner takes all" situation, lack of division of power, high political polarization, and the difficulty of carrying out peaceful rotation of power due to the zero-sum nature of the power struggle.
      However, in Indonesia there are several other institutional factors that act as dampeners and prevent the escalation of political violence even though it adheres to a presidential system.
- There are democratic and periodic general elections, which provide a channel for political participation and peaceful rotation of power.
- Sharing power with other state institutions such as the parliament (DPR) and the judiciary (MA), so that excessive concentration of power does not occur.
- Decentralization and regional autonomy which spreads power not only at the center, reducing the risk of national polarization and marginalization.
- The diversity of Indonesian society and the culture of tolerance that is fostered prevents conflict from escalating into massive violence.
Even though there are still incidents of political violence such as riots and acts of terror, the institutional factors above are able to manage and prevent this violence from developing into a major conflict that threatens the integrity of the country.
In conclusion, although the presidential system has the potential to trigger political violence, in Indonesia this can be balanced by other institutional factors that dampen and facilitate peaceful political participation. Indonesia is an example that political violence does not always occur even though it adopts a presidential system, as long as there are other balancing institutions that function well.
