Street demonstrations effective for achieving change in Indonesia
Max Lane, Murdoch WA, Australia
On May 26 The Jakarta Post published two interesting opinion pieces: Indonesian democracy or 'demo-crazy'? by Ziad Salim and Complacency: Indonesia's democratic deficit by Adam Tyson. In some key respects, these two articles presented opposite points of view.
Salim argued that Indonesian democracy was, in effect, marred by two much political activity, specifically street demonstrations while Tyson was arguing that there was too much complacency. In some ways, however, there is also an overlap in the two perspectives.
There is little doubt that street demonstrations, called unjuk rasa in the media but aksi (actions) on the street, have played a central role in Indonesian politics since the days of the struggle against Dutch colonialism. In the period of the nationalist struggle, it was called actie massa and actions like strikes and mass rallies (vergadering) became a major weapon against Dutch colonial oppression.
After independence, it was the campaigns of mass demonstrations against the remnants of Dutch colonialism, in particular the unjust foreign Debt, that resulted in the Ali Sastromidjojo government repudiating 85 percent of Indonesia's foreign debt to Holland. Today's demonstrations against the foreign debt to American and British banks have not yet reached the same levels.
Unilateral actions by workers also successfully took control of Dutch plantations, mines and other companies in the late 1950s, providing a basis for Indonesia to develop its economy independent of Dutch neo-colonial interests.
When these companies were mismanaged in the late 1950s and early 1960s by their new managers, usually military officers, there were again demonstrations demanding retooling (i.e. dismissal) of these managers.
There were also demonstrations demanding that state enterprises have management councils where trade unions were directly represented. By 1965 one third of all such state enterprises had trade union representation.
In 1964, when new land reform laws passed on parliament were being thwarted in their implementation, landless peasants also demonstrated by occupying land due for distribution. In these latter cases there was unjuk otot (flexing the muscles) when landowners used the police and militia against the farmers.
One myth is that Sukarno was overthrown by student demonstrations. Sukarno was overthrown as a result of a slow coup by Gen. Soeharto. The student demonstrations by anti-Sukarno students during 1965 and 1966 were used to legitimize the moves made by Soeharto.
They were very different than the street demonstrations in 1997 and 1998 that forced President Soeharto out of power. In 1965-1966, the students were backed by the Army who had arrested or killed members of the much larger student organizations that supported Sukarno. Anti-Sukarno students went out onto the streets; while pro-Sukarno students went into goal or were buried. In 1997 and 1998, students were defying the Army, not being supported by it.
In fact, the coming to power of Soeharto in 1965 saw a concerted attempt to end all aksi: Depoliticisation and the floating mass were the orders of the day. But Soeharto was not able to end all aksi. because (the anti-Sukarno) students had been allies of Soeharto in 1965 and 1966, the new government felt it necessary to allow some extra freedom on the campuses. Once the 1966 generation had left the campuses and a new generation was active, demonstrations began again, this time mainly against corruption. By 1973/1974, demonstrations were again a daily affair.
From 1978 until 1988, demonstrations were relatively infrequent. But in 1989, students and peasants began demonstrating together, mainly over issues of land dispossession. A whole new generation of aksi and unjuk rasa began. During the 1990s, factory workers joined the process, as exemplified by the protest strikes at factories like Gajah Tunggal and Great River. In fact, I think Salim is underestimating the extent to which ordinary people joined aksi.
A review of the Indonesian press during the period points to an increasing participation by factory workers, office workers, fishermen, farmers, students, teachers and even doctors, all sectors, in aksi and unjuk rasa. Most of these, though not all, were small and around immediate issues, but a new generalized process had begun.
This process began a new stage in June 1996 when about forty thousand people demonstrated on a march to gambit station in Jakarta protesting the coup against Megawati Soekarnoputri in the Indonesian Democratic Party.
As with many demonstrations before, the Army was used against the demonstration. Political unjuk rasa then multiplied during 1996 and 1997, including during the 1997 election campaign. The ground was being laid for what was to happen in early 1998.
Aksi had gone from being only about local and specific issues but about national political questions. Soon there were aksi around the country on Indonesia's campuses demanding the resignation of Soeharto after it was seen that his only response to the socio-economic crisis after 1997 was to appoint even closer cronies, even his own daughter, into his cabinet. It was then that the aksi momentum increased leading to the occupation of the parliament building in Jakarta and even bigger demonstrations in some other cities. Soeharto fell and the era of reformasi began.
So it was unjuk rasa and aksi that has given Indonesia the freedoms it has today. Will they continue to play such a positive role or are they becoming counter-productive as argued by Salim?
The extent to which they occur in the form of protests is directly dependent on whether socio-economic sand cultural conditions are improving as a result of government policy, or getting worse.
This is a simplistic explanation, but accurate all the same. Will the next government have a program that can reverse the decline in conditions for the majority of Indonesians?
Answer that question and you have answered the question about the role of aksi.
The writer is Visiting Fellow of Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University.