Students: Wake up to reality

Irine Hiraswari Gayatri, Researcher, The RIDEP Institute, Jakarta

One alternative apart from so many parties vying for their own self interests may be the students -- if they are not too late in realizing what is happening.

A continuous characteristic has underlined the spirit of the Indonesian student movement: The endless discourse on whether theirs is a "moral movement" or "political movement".

Authorities have used the term "moral movement" to shut out any attempt to oppose the stability of the regime. The previous New Order regime also stigmatized the term "political movement", associating it with subversion. Anything "political" was negative. Citizens, including intellectuals and students, were afraid of politics, which has become equal to "an act of taking power"; or "taking advantage of others".

Differentiating the concepts of "moral" or "political" movements is no longer relevant.

The term "moral movement" refers to those involved in attempts to improve the morale of the surrounding environment. Describing the 1966 students movement in which he was active, Arief Budiman cited the American cowboy movie, Shane. The cowboy Shane would suddenly come out of nowhere to exterminate thugs that had long terrorized villagers. He refused the respected position of sheriff and instead rode off into the sunset.

Arief likened the students to the cowboy, who in 1966 were said to be crucial in the ousting of the Old Order regime under Sukarno. On one hand, the moral movement represented the people's mandate, who were unsatisfied by The Old Order's incapacity to feed its citizens. But the "moral movement" represented by the 1966 student generation also suffered inevitable consequences.

The students' struggle was only regarded as "camouflage" toward the real means: The transformation of the powers that be into a new regime, the New Order. Thus, the students' ideal of enlightening people who were suffering, was not achieved.

History has noted the students' efforts in introducing new values in society. The late 1970s saw the beginning of a new context in Indonesian politics. Students faced contradictions in their ideals. Members of the political elite, who came to power through a bloody tragedy, neglected their "holy" calls. Some went along with the newly born regime; others were left behind, and stayed outside the political arena. Hence the moral movement campaign became more popular among students.

Indonesia is now facing a high degree of complexities. A need for fundamental changes, campaigned by various groups, goes unheeded. Students' appeals are no longer effective either. The government, now under the leadership of its fifth president, seems to run its own political agenda without touching the basic issues: Economic recovery and legal supremacy, including the upholding of human rights.

Will the students confine themselves again within the "moral movement" jargons? Political parties have been unable to conduct its function as a catalyst for people's interests. Non government organizations are vulnerable to their own internal problems.

Today, one cannot depend on what seems to be the moment. One day, Golkar chairman Akbar Tandjung goes to trial, the next day thousands resist the Golkar Party. Another day the Kontras (the independent Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence) office is attacked, the next day, a new alliance among pro-democracy activists is built. And the old guard, thanks in part to international support via economic recovery programs, is striving to return, and may indeed regain control.

Plans to re-establish "political stability" is now at hand. And once the students and pro-democracy activists realize this, it may be too late: Everything that they struggled for could vanish virtually overnight.