Bus drivers' strike is weapon of the weak

Thousands of commuters were stranded last week when city bus drivers staged a strike protesting the enforcement of a new traffic regulation. Sociologist Aswab Mahasin attributes the strike to long suppressed frustration on the part of the drivers.

JAKARTA (JP): The bus drivers' strike came as a shock to both authorities and residents last week. It turned the normally crowded streets of Jakarta into vacant stretches on Tuesday, leaving passengers stranded at bus terminals and shelters.

Only 20,000 public buses serve this city of 8.5 million people, compared to about two million private cars. Their sudden disappearance had a tremendous impact on Jakarta. Even with no warning of the drivers' actions, the army and the police forces were on hand to assist the public on a moment's notice. The situation was back to normal by Friday and surprisingly, very few incidents were reported.

Bearing in mind the initial reactions of the drivers and the general public last year, when the law first went into effect, after a delay of a year, the strike seemed predictable. At the time rumors about a possible drivers' strike alerted the army and police forces, who poised themselves for immediate deployment. The fact that strikes did not happen earlier was only due to the wise decision last year to postpone enforcing the new fine scale and some other aspects of the law.

Now, with Law No. 14/1992 fully in effect, the strike should have been anticipated. But it came as a shock, not only to the general public but to the security forces as well.

The fines stated in the new law are incredibly steep, about tenfold the previous rates.

And, as experience shows, rulings of this sort are bound to be violated, with loopholes allowing the solicitation of bribes. The chronic gap between the rules in theory and in practice is such that there are always possibilities of minor offenses or negligence being exploited. A driver may forget to close a door as the passengers keep getting on and off every mile or so. He may also forget to keep first aid supplies and mechanical tools on board. Such infractions were once settled informally and at reasonable rates. Now, the new rates for the fines, and thus, the bribes, are now out of the drivers' reach. As well, the drivers have little recourse in voicing their grievances. For that reason, they ended up striking last week.

Reportedly, the minibus drivers started the strike. This is understandable as theirs is the most vulnerable public transportation sector. Regardless of the fact that the minibuses are all the same color and run under the same name, they are under the control of individual owners, most middle and small scale businessmen. Each may own one or two minibuses and their only stake in the joint company is administration fees.

Furious

Drivers and owners are loosely organized, their only contact coming when the daily rental money for the buses is collected from the drivers at the end of the day. The drivers sometimes subcontract the buses to often unlicensed hustlers. As a result, traffic regulations may or may not be obeyed.

The drivers have to bear all the expenses. They are responsible for gasoline, terminal fees, tips to watchmen at the bus stops, occasional bribes, their bus crews' wages, and the flat daily payment to the owner. Only a tiny portion remains as take home income. This may range from US$5 to $10 depending on their luck during the day. Its no wonder that the drivers become so furious when threatened with increased fines.

Still, some people wonder how they organized the strike in the first place. Having never been unionized or organized, and even competing fiercely with one another each day, how could they have staged such a cooperative action?

The assumption is that there must have been a dalang, a mastermind, auctor intellectualis, or agent provocateur of some sort. Proof of these conspiracy theories, very popular in explaining any unrest these days, will have to wait until the questioning of the 35 people detained by the police is completed.

At this point we can simply assume the strike was a spontaneous reaction, genuine and in a sense apolitical, an explosion of long suppressed frustration.

In the meantime, any response to the strike on the part of the authorities involving a change or amendment of the law could be perceived as a sign of weakness on the government's part.

Even the legislators could lose face. After all, they were responsible for the law's approval in the first place. Hence the stern and uncompromising police reaction to the sit-in. As for the drivers, they can simply get back behind the wheel. They have sent their message and though it may have fallen upon deaf ears, some realize that the weapon of the weak is still around.

The writer is a former NGO worker, now serving as deputy director for a training program on the environment and development with the Foundation for Sustainable Development in Jakarta.