Student movement must be free from political interests: Adian<\/p>\n
The following is an interview with Adian Napitupulu, the
\nleader of the student group Forum Kota (Forkot), about the
\nperceived split among the student groups that have been waging
\nstreet rallies in response to the current political crisis.
\nAdian's group is widely perceived to be in conflict with groups
\nspearheaded by university student councils, such as BEM-UI, over
\nwhether President Abdurrahman Wahid should remain in office.
\nThese differences have already resulted in an attack by one
\nstudent group on a number of student council activists. An
\ninterview with BEM-UI leader Taufik Riyadi ran on this page on
\nTuesday.<\/p>\n
Question: How would you describe the landscape of the student
\nmovement today?<\/p>\n
Answer: Students are now split into two. The first group
\nsupports certain political institutions and the elite who are now
\nin conflict. This particular group is split further into at least
\ntwo factions, namely those that support the executive branch of
\npower and those that support the legislators.<\/p>\n
These students have directly or indirectly, consciously or
\notherwise, positioned themselves as subordinates to the powers
\nthat be, which has caused us to question their objectivity,
\nhonesty and \"moral legitimacy\".<\/p>\n
Groups that formally support Gus Dur are (the Islamic student
\norganizations) PMII, IPP-NU and some others, while supporters of
\nthe legislature include (the Islamic student organizations) HMI
\nand KAMMI.<\/p>\n
There are also those who have established technical committees
\nin support of Gus Dur. The supporters of the legislature (DPR)
\nhave also established their own committees outside of their
\noriginal organizations, namely the student councils.<\/p>\n
So the students are indeed divided?<\/p>\n
I believe there are signs of that. This (split) occurred when
\nthe pro-DPR activists forced the other students to take a
\nconfrontational position, (saying in effect) that the failure to
\nsupport the DPR was tantamount to supporting Gus Dur. But it's
\nnot that simple.<\/p>\n
Today, any political force needs the support of students to
\nlegitimize its aspirations and interests. It is therefore
\nregrettable that some students have fallen into this \"game\".<\/p>\n
They realized that their presence was needed. Meanwhile, the
\npolitical elite realized that students and the people movement
\ncould be turned into a commodity, so they made use of that.<\/p>\n
The students were united in 1998 because you had a common
\nenemy, namely Soeharto. Why have you been divided since?<\/p>\n
It's probably because some student groups are no longer pure.
\nThey are no longer (loyal) to their earlier positions. If they
\nwant to take sides, they should quit the student movement. The
\nstudent movement should not take the side of anyone but the
\npeople. It should never become the tool of any political force.
\nIt should instead be the tool of the people's political force.<\/p>\n
(I blame) the infiltration (of the student movement) by
\ncertain political powers from some political parties ... They
\ninfiltrated the student groups and ... made use of the confusion
\nfelt by students about selecting issues for their campaign.<\/p>\n
Are you saying some student groups have been co-opted by
\npolitical interests?<\/p>\n
Yes, by the political elite. We suspect the involvement of
\nmoney here, but I am not naming names or sources. What's clear is
\nthat something has gone amiss. There's a very strong smell of
\nmoney here.<\/p>\n
The tabloid Adil reported that your group, too, reeks of
\nmoney.<\/p>\n
We categorically deny any (speculation) about (being paid)
\nmoney (to champion a cause). In fact, we have run out of money
\nfor logistics because everyone is so busy with this fight.
\nWhoever is not involved in the fight will be abandoned.<\/p>\n
Your group has a message similar to that of Gus Dur's
\nsupporters, namely the dissolution of Golkar. This is why it is
\neasy for the public to believe that your group supports Gus Dur.<\/p>\n
Those who think that have forgotten history, namely that the
\ndissolution of Golkar had been our demand since Soeharto fell (in
\n1998), when B.J. Habibie became president and when he lost the
\npresidency, up to when Gus Dur was elected president.<\/p>\n
That was our original demand. Now (those who say Forkot
\nsupports Gus Dur) may know this history but have their own
\npolitical agenda, (which they hope to further) by increasing this
\nsplit among the students.<\/p>\n
It is difficult to change the public's perception of things,
\nincluding Forkot's perceived support of Gus Dur. What do you
\nthink?<\/p>\n
I think that is because the media refuses to reveal that there
\nis a third party to the split. The media refuses to give us space
\nto explain (the split). So the people have been forced to choose
\nfrom only two options: for or against (Gus Dur).<\/p>\n
A recent meeting between Gus Dur and members of Forkot at
\nHotel Indonesia strengthened the perception that Forkot supports
\nGus Dur.<\/p>\n
We were invited, but we came to Hotel Indonesia not to take
\npart in the meeting. We used the opportunity to voice our
\npolitical stance in another room.<\/p>\n
Now that student groups are divided, what do you think is the
\nprospect for the reform campaign of the young intellectuals?<\/p>\n
I think this is a process of natural selection for students to
\nsee which among them are gold and which are straw. Gold remains a
\nvaluable metal when it is put into the fire, while straw burns.<\/p>\n
What do you think can be done to reconcile the students?<\/p>\n
First, they could be grouped into one organization. This would
\nbe very difficult, however. Second, they could be reunited by a
\nfigure within the student movement itself. Maybe three or four
\nfigures, but I don't think this option is available at the
\nmoment. Third, they could be reunited if they had a common enemy.<\/p>\n
But the split affecting students today is such that it would
\nbe difficult to reunite them, even if they had a common enemy,
\nbecause of the conviction that the enemy of BEM (student
\ncouncils) are student groups outside of BEM. And vice versa.<\/p>\n
This has made it difficult for students to see the problems
\nclearly. They have no distance from the problems; they are part
\nof the problems because they have been trapped into voicing
\nsupport for this or that group.<\/p>\n
Reconciliation is difficult, though not impossible. It would
\ntake a long time, a great deal of energy and hard work. Which is
\nwhy what we need to do is reduce the polarization. Student groups
\nmust distance themselves from political interests to restore
\ntheir objectivity and honesty in assessing the situation.<\/p>\n
They can never be objective if they are part of the problem.<\/p>\n
Some people and organizations, namely the Cipayung Group
\n(members of student movements from the 1980s), have stated their
\nwillingness to act as mediators and help reconcile the students.<\/p>\n
I don't think they can, because those people are also part of
\nthe problem. Elements of the Cipayung Group are members of PMII
\nand HMI. They are the ones in conflict. The conflict then spread
\nbecause of intersections among student groups, both in formal and
\nnonformal organizations. (Deka Kurniawan)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/student-movement-must-be-free-from-political-interests-adian-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}