One year on and students still pushing for change<\/p>\n
Demonstrating university students were among the major
\nelements behind the immense pressure that eventually forced
\nSoeharto to resign a year ago. Hermawan Sulistyo, director of the
\nResearch Institute for Democracy and Peace reevaluates the
\nstudent movement.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Many observers theorized that Soeharto was
\nforced out of power a year ago by his fourteen dissenting cabinet
\nministers. It has been made public that the fourteen ministers
\nsubmitted a joint letter of resignation on the night before May
\n21, 1998 when the president made his well known \"I quit\"
\nannouncement. But this perception is arguable at least for two
\nreasons.<\/p>\n
First, if Soeharto's past political behavior could be used as
\na benchmark, there was no evidence that he ever made compromises
\nwith dissenting aides. In fact, he had always reacted sternly
\nagainst any political opposition. Second, the joint resignation
\nletter from his ministers never reached him that night. A high
\nranking official had kept the letter in his pocket. Nevertheless,
\nSoeharto did learn that his ministers wanted to resign.<\/p>\n
What had really forced Soeharto out then was the immense
\npublic pressure spearheaded by the demonstrating students.
\nPerceptions on this issue are important, for historiography can
\nbe written differently. Student movements are then inarguably the
\nmost significant factor in pushing the first fundamental change
\nin today's political life.<\/p>\n
Now, one year on, many prodemocracy activists are not happy
\nwith the outcome of the political reform movement. Other than
\npress freedom, there was almost nothing else that could be
\nconsidered as an encouraging result. So, what has gone wrong?<\/p>\n
The question looms over recent stubbornness on the part of the
\nregime to consolidate itself. Meanwhile, students are still
\ntaking to the streets espousing their demands for total reform.
\nTheir demand to bring former president Soeharto to court has
\nnever been met.<\/p>\n
The students who are the prime movers behind this reform
\nactivism started their movement as a moral force. Former
\npresident Soeharto, a strong leader, was seen as a symbol of
\ndegrading morality who was the only target of the movement. When
\nthe students finally did succeed in achieving this single goal,
\nthey were caught in confusion. Some immediately rejected Habibie
\nas President, some others were willing to give Habibie a chance
\nto prove himself and the rest simply supported him.<\/p>\n
Starting as a moral force bore a consequence in which students
\nlost their force when the nature of struggle transformed itself
\nto become more political. It was not like the political force of
\nthe student movement in 1965-1966 when waves of protests brought
\nwith them demands to dissolve and ban the communist party (PKI)
\nfrom the Indonesian political landscape.<\/p>\n
At the beginning, the students never demanded Golkar to be
\ndissolved. Now, the party managed to consolidate itself to become
\nthe last bastion of the old regime. Students lost the \"battle\"
\nbecause they never perceived themselves as a political entity.
\nWhen students realized that they lost the subsequent \"battle,\"
\nGolkar and other elements of the old regime managed to survive,
\nat least.<\/p>\n
Also contributing to the students' lost battle is the
\n\"stealing\" of the agenda of reform. From the beginning, no
\npolitical power was strong enough to adopt an agenda of a total
\nreform. When Habibie replaced Soeharto, his regime immediately
\n\"stole\" the reform agenda by naming itself a \"reform government.\"<\/p>\n
Operating under this banner Habibie's administration indeed
\nadopted a minor reform. Enactments of new political laws are a
\nclear example. The new law of the general election, for instance,
\nstill stipulates the allocation of 38 free seats for the
\nIndonesian Military (TNI).<\/p>\n
To some degree, a \"reluctant reform\" has made its success,
\nespecially in demeaning student protests and taking over the
\ntasks of changing the system in a very slow way. The speed of the
\n\"stolen changes\" is not enough, since there is an economic crisis
\nthat needs an urgent call for political remedies.<\/p>\n
Many students now feel that the reform has moved in another
\ndirection. They started to think about faster changes, something
\nthey call \"revolution.\" A revolution in this sense is nothing
\nmore than a total reform. But the public has been misleadingly
\ninterpreting the new \"agenda\" of student protests as something
\nviolent and horrible.<\/p>\n
Still moving as a moral force, the students also lost most
\nparts of its reform agenda to new political parties. The train of
\ndemocracy has changed locomotives. Unfortunately, political
\nparties are busy with their efforts to vie for power rather than
\ncontinue the original agenda of reform. To take an example, only
\na few, if any, political parties give a serious assessment on the
\nmounting pile of foreign loans that the students will have to pay
\nsomeday.<\/p>\n
Many student activists believe that most of their demands are
\nnow impossible to implement. But they take the maximalist
\nposition anyway for they know that being realistic would only
\nslow down the process of change while the country still urgently
\nneeds changes. This is why after all their failures, they still
\ntake to the streets. And we still need them.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/one-year-on-and-students-still-pushing-for-change-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}