The 1998 student movement revisited

The 1998 student movement revisited

Ari A. Perdana
Centre for Strategic and International Studies
Jakarta
Ari_Perdana@csis.or.id

Calling for reform, follow us! Calling for succession, follow
us! No need to doubt, friends, just hold our hands. Ever onward,
we will win! That was one of the most popular chants yelled by
students during the 1998 movement.

It has been four years since the student movement in 1998
successfully brought Soeharto down from power. It was
unpredicted, even unexpected, that Soeharto could be toppled by
such a movement. Similar previous movements and political
attempts to bring him down from power had never been successful.
For more than 30 years, Soeharto had built a system that
generated some kind of shield that protected against any
disturbances to his power.

But May 21, 1998, was the last day he was in power. The drama
of the student movement that began in late 1997 and early 1998
culminated in mid-May 1998. The death of four Trisakti University
students in Jakarta, followed by a citywide racial riot, were the
turning points. In the following weeks, thousands of students
occupied the House of Representatives, calling for the
impeachment of Soeharto. But Soeharto, without waiting for the
legislature to impeach him, announced his resignation as
president.

Undoubtedly, the student movement was one of the most, if not
the most, influential aspects in bringing Soeharto down from
power.

But it is also a fact that the 1998 student movement only
succeeded in forcing Soeharto to step down. The movement did not
topple the New Order regime totally. Many actors of that era
still survive on the current political stage. But more
importantly, the movement was not able completely to transform
the system and paradigm of the New Order. The current system
inherited many things from the past that were supposed to be
corrected. For example, corruption continues, and is even getting
worse. In other words, the 1998 movement was unable to bring
about a complete revolution.

Senior sociologist Arief Budiman once said that historical
revolutions had to meet several requirements to be considered
successful. First, there has to be a solid, organized mass.
Second, the presence of a strong, symbolic leadership. Third,
usually a revolution is triggered by a certain event. In some
cases we can add a fourth aspect, which is an alternative
ideology.

The 1998 movement mainly relied on historical momentum, which
was the economic crisis. The masses were not completely solid and
organized. Some campuses and action units may have already had a
solid basis, but in general the students did not yet have a
common ground regarding the direction of the movement. There was
even friction among the students, which after Soeharto had
resigned resulted in the movement splitting up.

The 1998 movement did not have a charismatic and symbolic
leadership. Even the students at the time tended to reject the
leadership of any certain public figure or university. The
movement also was not based on any ideology. Some might have
declared themselves to be "leftists" or "Islamic activists", but
the student movement in general was not ideologically driven.
This was understandable as any ideological movement might have
been easily repressed by the ruler.

To some extent, the absence of an organized mass, symbolic
leadership and an alternative ideology provided the students some
advantages. The students could claim their movement was a moral,
rather than a political movement. In this way, they could also
claim to be speaking for the people suffering in the economic
crisis, without being suspected of acting as agents for certain
political interests.

But the student movement appeared to lack a strong basis to be
a long-term sustainable movement. The movement was supposed to
broaden its scope to become a people's movement, in which other
elements of civil society would have melted into a single unity.
However, the Trisakti incident happened before this collaboration
became solid. As a result, the student and non-student elements
were no longer hand-in-hand after Soeharto resigned.

Even the students themselves seemed to be split when B.J.
Habibie replaced Soeharto. Some students, especially those
affiliated with the Islamic factions, supported Habibie. Others
considered him as someone from the past who should also be
toppled.

The lack of a long-term common platform among the students
paved the way for politicians to steal the show. The reform
agenda was then brought into the formal state institutions.
However, the existing institutions and political system were the
same as those in the New Order era. For example, the election
system still produces legislators who do not represent voters.
Rather, they look after the interests of their parties in trading
for power.

And now, after four years, the reform movement has yet to pay
the appropriate dividends. Some may even consider that the
movement died prematurely. Hence, corrective measures to bring
the reform movement back on track should be taken. This will
require contributions from those who still are concerned about
reform. But it should be done collectively, by all elements of
civil society, including students, academics, non-governmental
organization activists and many more.

And how about politicians? Well, we can drop them from the
equation.