Students need not seek leading figures: Jalaluddin

By M.M.I Ahyani

BANDUNG (JP): Jalaluddin Rahmat is officially a political communications professor at Padjadjaran University, but since 1992 he has not been given any teaching assignments nor has he been told why.

"I really didn't know whether I had been given the sack or what. But the new rector, Prof. Himendra, is said to be considering asking me to teach again, so may be I will be given all of the salary that I have not received since 1992," he said, laughing.

Fondly addressed by students and colleagues as Kang (honorific term for "elder brother" in the Sundanese dialect), Jalaluddin was better known as the founder of the Muthahari Pesantren (Islamic boarding school) which some years ago was thought to be adhering to the Shi'ite school of Islam.

In recent years, however, he has become more involved in student movements. He spoke to The Jakarta Post recently.

Question: Some people say the student movement is no longer 'pure.'

Answer: What is 'pure'? If we define purity of the student movement as not being backed by certain political interests, I'd say that up to the present the student movement has been pure.

Now, the 1966 student movement that led to the establishment of Soeharto's New Order regime was not pure because it was supported by the Armed Forces (ABRI).

On the other hand, ABRI dislikes the current student movement so much because it is so against it as shown in student demands for the revocation of the Armed Forces' political role.

In the beginning, the students all fought for the same thing, namely to force Soeharto to step down. What drove them together was not an ideological leaning but the people's prolonged misery due to the worsening economic crisis. They shared the same anguish. I was there beside them in those critical days. They came from various backgrounds... but were bound together by the same mission.

Immediately after Soeharto stepped down... students became confused. What objective should they fight for? At the same time, there were interest groups trying to lure the students away from their main agenda; some of these groups even brought along "Islamic banners" aimed at "disrupting" the student movement.

Q: The students' confusion was proof of their genuineness?

A: Correct. They were confused as to what to achieve next. But they later found a new shared concern: the brutality of the security forces. This, and the crisis, united students throughout the country.

They were at first distracted by issues such as whether President B.J. Habibie must step down, whether his presidency was constitutional, whether there should be a special session of the People's Consultative Assembly or whether Indonesia should go straight to a general election... But when they experienced brutality at the hands of security personnel, they bound together...If the security authorities continued to suppress the movement, the students would be even more solid.

Q: In some rallies, students became confrontational with security personnel...

A: I assume actions such as carrying weapons were not part of a genuine student movement... I suspect that certain parties have manipulated the students. As far as I'm concerned, these students do not believe in violence or rioting. I know for sure because I'm close to them. They strive for peace and theirs is a moral movement... Since the beginning they have been hampered by the image that their movement was linked to riots.

The students of today are smarter than their seniors during my time in the New Order era. The students today know not to let any other parties interfere during their street rallies so as to prevent riots. So, those students who brandished weapons and fought security personnel... I don't think they're part of the student movement. They may have student IDs, like Wiwid (Pratiwo, who admitted to have been paid by the military to spy on fellow students), but they were manipulated by soldiers.

Q: What about those who are considered by many to be radical. Are they genuine too?

A: To me, yes. Students in general think about how to speed up this country's recovery. They are called radical because they want quick changes... this is their nature... They could no longer stand to see people in misery. The closer we get to people the faster we want changes to occur.

Q: How are students going to find their niche at this time, when interest groups play their own games?

A: There is no need for students to follow certain patrons here. They have to follow their idealism, defend the suffering people. That's it. No need to worry about other parties' moves, they should just prepare their own agendas.

Look at the Ciganjur declaration in November when students brought together so-called reform leaders Abdurrahman Wahid, Sri Sultan Hamengkubuwono X, Megawati Soekarnoputri and Amien Rais. As it turned out, the four figures eventually campaigned for their own agendas.

That's a mistake on the part of students in their attempt to choose a leading figure... it is important for students to set their own agendas in order to be consistent and genuine.

Q: What is your assessment of the current political situation?

A: I am a bit pessimistic. I am afraid about what could happen ahead of the June 7 general election.

That's because the government's so-called reform agenda is mere cosmetics to appease the people and the students. The poll is advertised as if it would be the answer to all demands for reform. But there are many regulations that favor the government. The People's Consultative Assembly failed to touch on many issues because they were considered to be damaging to the government.

The government is seeking to maintain the status quo. This could be seen through the planned civilian militia. I believe the militia have started training, even before the ruling is established. So, militia first, regulation later. And legal justifications could be fabricated. Minister of Justice Muladi is tasked with finding the right legislation to legitimize the militia. The militia to me are "political soldiers" approved by the ruler.

Golkar, through its chairman Akbar Tandjung, supports the militia. In political communications we start to analyze with the question "who benefits from what." So who benefits from the civilian militia? This would explain things.

Q: You are a lecturer. How would you grade Habibie's administration so far?

A: For security and defense, he scores the lowest, only between zero and one. He flunked.

For economic developments, I give him 5 for his policies. For the political sector, especially in democratization, I gave him 6.5. Especially if it was specified in terms of freedom of expression, the mark could be as high as 8. Had it not been for his law on freedom of expression, he could have scored 10. We are free to form parties to slander or to create gossip. But because of the law, now he only gets 4.

For human rights protection, 5. For elections, we still have to wait and see.