teilen
tweet
bluesky
masto
link
mail 
9. November 2025
11 min.
Drucken
Korrektur
Im Buch werden zwar einerseits kolonialistische Sichtweisen verworfen, andererseits bezieht sich Bima unter anderem auf die Studien von Pierre Clastres, James C. Scott und David Graeber. Explizit hat ihn offenbar Scotts The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia (2009) inspiriert, wobei die Inselregion Maluku anderen geografischen Bedingungen unterliege, als das Hochland Südostasiens. „Maluku“ bezeichnete zunächst die nördlichen Inseln Ternate und Tidore.
Der Begriff wurde unter holländischer Kolonialverwaltung 1922 als Bezeichnung für die Inseln Kei, Aru, Tanimbar, Wetar und Kisar eingeführt. Schrittweise wurde die Bezeichnung als staatliches Herrschaftsgebiet und -gebilde aufgefasst – und damit eine Geschichte von Maluku als eine von Königreichen konstruiert. Dabei variierte die tatsächliche gesellschaftliche Organisationsweise zwischen den verschiedenen Stämmen sehr stark. Letztendlich kann damit eine Inselgruppe im Osten des heutigen Indonesiens bezeichnet werden, die etwa ein Fünftel des Landes ausmacht, wobei heute nur 2 Millionen Menschen auf dem Gebiet leben. Dort jedenfalls gab es einen staatenlosen Raum, der den Untersuchungsgegenstand des Buches bildet. Diesen bezeichnet der Autor als „Alifuru World“ und knüpft damit an eine Gegenerzählung zur „Maluku World“ (der Ternate-Tidore Zivilisation) an. „Alifuru“ bedeutet Land der „Wilden“, „Primitiven“, „Unzivilisierten“. Ursprünglich wurden mit „Alifuru“ allerdings alle nicht-muslimischen, nicht-christlichen Gesellschaften bezeichnet.
Die Ausdehnung von Staatlichkeit geschah in Wechselwirkung mit dem Einwirken der europäischen Kolonialmächte (Spanien, Portugal, ab 1666 nur noch Holland), sowie der Expansion des Islam. Dagegen gab (und gibt) es ein anderes – ein alifuristisches – Maluku. Menschen hatten vor dem 15. Jh. wenig Interesse an Staaten. Die europäischen Kolonialmächte sind nicht der einzige Faktor, der zu ihrer Etablierung und Durchsetzung führte – aber eben ein ganz entscheidender. Dennoch wehrten sich die Einwohner*innen gegen Bürokratie, Nation, Gewaltmonopol und Zentralisierung politischer Macht. Und sie tun es bis heute…
Ich habe das Buch bisher nur durchschauen können und kann mich nicht qualifiziert dazu äussern, da es nicht mein Fachgebiet betrifft. Allerdings erscheint es mir spannend und möchte ich hiermit gerne darauf hinweisen. Bei minorcompositions.info ist das Buch open access verfügbar. Bima kann aber auch gespendet werden, um seine Arbeit vom Gefängnis aus weiterzuführen.
Unten habe ich einige längere Textpassagen aus den Zusammenfassungen im Buch aufgeführt, die mir lesenswert erschienen.
Aus dem Vorwort
„Societies without states have existed and have been a common feature of human history across the globe, particularly in Southeast Asia.“ (xi) „Our historiography indeed emphasizes the activities of rulers and power. “Power” is a key concept by which the political center is seen as influencing its subjects. The center possesses the ability to regulate, mobilize, measure, and oversee the periphery, and it is rarely viewed the other way around. This paradigm appears to be widely accepted, so much so that even though the term “Maluku” existed before the arrival of Islam, some believe that the term “Maluku” comes from the Arabic word muluk (كولملا), which means “kings.” Maluku is then interpreted as the “land of kings” or “land of a thousand kings.” This is supported by the fact that tribal or village leaders held grand titles, including “raja” (king). However, many of their social organizations are difficult to describe as kingdoms and are more accurately referred to as stateless societies. certain period, these “kings” were the result of appointments, romotions, and grants made by states that claimed power or conquered the regions where these communities resided.“ (xiif.)
„In its historical definition, anarchism is certainly stateless, but stateless societies are not necessarily anarchist. Modern anarchism, which developed in Europe, is better understood in terms of specific ideological pillars and principles. When I use the term “anarchy” here, it refers more to a broader libertarian universe, which is not always connected with historical terms but includes struggles and initiatives against authoritarianism, opposition to domination, and advocacy for egalitarian forms of relationships“ (xv)
Aus der Zusammenfassung des 1. Kapitels:
„The Alifuru world was a society without centralized institutions overseeing various groups or settlements that are autonomous from one another. These groups and settlements were bound only through kinship ties or alliance agreements. Each village had various leaders and chiefs whose power is limited or almost nonexistent. Sometimes the village chiefs were actually creations of Ternate-Tidore or the Dutch. The king title at times lead to incorrect conclusions about the relatively egalitarian and democratic nature that is contrary to real authority. Of course, there were some exceptions, such as the hereditary titles of tribal chiefs, social stratification, or the division of villages that submit to a parent village. But all this does not reach a size worthy of being called a kingdom or state. There had been no significant difference either in appearance or wealth between the leaders and the general members of the community. All decisions related to public affairs were always made through deliberations involving many people. In short, there was no centralization of power and accumulation of wealth as in state societies (we will discuss this further). This is what we mean by anarchy“ (35).
Aus der Zusammenfassung des 2. Kapitels:
„From the explanation above, it is evident that state formation in Maluku was influenced by dynamic interactions within the context of the spice trade. The political and economic changes accompanying the arrival and consolidation of Islam and Europe from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries ensured the central position of Maluku – with its clove-producing islands – in the north and the dominance of Ternate and Tidore at its core. By the late sixteenth century, the Ternate and Tidore palace decided to emulate other Muslim kingdoms in the archipelago in terms of dress style, language, and governance structure reforms.
As the sixteenth century progressed, various influences culminated in a transformation of the social and political systems in Ternate and Tidore, shifting from kinship-based societies where decisions were made by consensus of the elders to Islamic sultanates with hierarchical power centered on a single individual. In the latter half of the sixteenth century, the sultans of Ternate and Tidore had centralized enough power to compete with each other over control of vast territories, including most of northern Maluku, parts of central Maluku, Sulawesi, and Raja Ampat islands. The sultans governed these regions through colonization and the presence of their representatives. Tributes and mandatory labor were collected and sent to Ternate-Tidore. Women from various regions were also taken as wives by the sultans.
Since the arrival of Portuguese and Spanish, and ultimately the Dutch – who succeeded in defeating both – only Tidore and Ternate remained as entities capable of dealing with the growing European power in Maluku. Ternate and Tidore saw Europe as key allies in their rivalry. Whenever opportunities arose, Ternate and Tidore took advantage to expand control over surrounding territories. They absorbed several regions that were left without rulers due to the decline or destruction of Jailolo, Bacan, and Banggai. This state formation process intensified primarily due to European assistance and encouragement, as Europeans benefited from the centralization of power. For hundreds of years since the first Europeans arrived in Maluku in the 1500s, their project proceeded through the conquest and incorporation of vast areas of the Alifuru World into state space, often violently (in some cases voluntarily), and was maintained through violence. […] Alifuru represents those who resisted domination and taming throughout the state formation projects in Maluku from the 15th to 19th centuries. We call this anarchy“ (65f.).
Aus der Zusammenfassung des 3. Kapitels:
„The formation of the state is prevented by various mechanisms in Alifuru culture that shut down the possibility of power centralization and prevent wealth accumulation, which are some of the factors for state formation. One of the mechanisms in Maluku's social life that seems beneficial to prevent the formation of the state is Siwa-Lima. They do not reject unity, because Siwa-Lima itself is unity within the concept of dualism; instead, Siwa-Lima rejects the stage of power centralization, as in the case of Ternate-Tidore. Siwa-Lima is a symbolic pact that binds its participants collectively, both in the alliance of nine or the alliance of five, to remain in a stateless condition, ensuring autonomy and equality in the balance of adversaries. War in the concept of Siwa-Lima is not for conquest, and without conquest, a state will not be formed. Without Siwa, there will be no Lima and vice versa.
Instead of power centralization with the establishment of Islamic monarchies, many stateless societies in Maluku established various federations, and there were at least three confederations (Fogoguru in Halmahera, Seri-Tahun, and Saniri Tiga Air in Seram) that align with modern anarchist theory, albeit very loosely applied. From some gathered information, Saniri itself was a council that managed reconciliation in disputes, indicating that wars and headhunting were attempted to be controlled or mitigated, but not eradicated. Such efforts also failed.
Not all areas had federations, as some islands had villages that were entirely independent of each other. Therefore, the existence of these institutions showed the capacity for self-organization within broader areas, united by common interests and needs, especially security and self-defense. At the same time, this allowed for the regulation of their own economy. Ergo, with or without a state, wars could happen. With or without a state, trade could happen. With or without a state, peace could also happen. Now, the arrangement for with or without a state is an active choice“ (93f.)
Aus dem Fazit
„Therefore, the concept of Alifuru cannot be understood in isolation. Alifuru is merely a side of the same coin that reflects the relative position of a group in relation to state authority. […] Being Alifuru is a political choice. If they submitted to the Sultanate's power, they could embrace Islam. If they submitted to European colonial power, they could embrace Christianity and Catholicism. If they were anarchists, they became Alifuru. However, embracing state religions did not guarantee full loyalty from the indigenous population or signify a loss of autonomy. In reality, neither the sultanates nor colonial states could fully control their subjects“ (96).„Ternate and Tidore had no ambition or power to conquer the interior, but the Dutch were different. The Dutch had naval superiority, and because of this, they were more powerful maritime-wise. The Dutch found it easier to conquer the coasts and made the coastal population their main allies in conquering the interior. But once the Dutch conquered the mountain settlements, they forced the Alifuru to move to the coast to be more easily monitored.
The form of social organization in Maluku, marked by political fragmentation, was also a major obstacle to the state formation project. For example, in order for the Dutch to conquer West Seram (Hoamoal) and Ambon Lease, Knaap (2003) referred to this process as the Hundred Years' War […].
An equally important aspect of the colonial project to restore societal conditions was the cooperation of indigenous community leaders, whose interests rarely fully aligned with those of the Dutch (Manse, 2021: 544). Chiefs were appointed and endorsed by the Dutch, and given greater power than what was given in their traditional authority“ (97f).
„The people of Maluku did not always see their relationships with Tidore-Ternate or European rulers as beneficial. If they became subjugated or victims of piracy, many communities across Maluku saw Europeans as potential allies and new rulers. At the same time, being under the shadow of government for most of the time was clearly unpleasant. It meant being regulated and supervised, taxed and levied, and their labor mobilized for things that typically only benefited the ruling class.
The most accurate conclusion at present is that the Alifuru became anarchists not because they were too ignorant to form a state. The Alifuru became anarchists also not simply because they were too far from the reach of government services and power. The Alifuru were anarchists because their society was characterized by relative equality; consensus decision-making; and the absence of centralized political institutions. Furthermore, they continuously fought for autonomy and actively strove to prevent themselves from forming a state. This means that the Alifuru were consciously and actively anarchist. They knew what they were avoiding and what they wanted“ (100).
Das Buch kann hier heruntergeladen werden.
