The harsh realities behind the agriculture policies

By Emmanuel Subangun

JAKARTA (JP): Indonesia, like many other countries, has sacrificed some of its citizens for the survival of the majority. Their presence is a prerequisite for life no matter what. Their sweat from hard work is the only product that ensures the continuity of life for the others.

Every day people must eat. Each second someone dies and is replaced by a new human being. Machines need humans to operate them. Ultimately, all work is carried out to maintain the life cycle where man is both the producer and target of production.

When will it end? In religious terms we would say, "till the end of the world." In modern vocabulary it is, "until all natural resources are depleted and human beings slowly find their end."

This means the depletion of natural resources until the death of the last human being. This is further determined by those directly involved with nature. The more they ruthlessly exploit nature, the faster it dies -- and vice versa.

And this is where problems start. The plundering of nature needs technology, from the plowing of land, to the technology to improve soil quality, to cultivation of the earth, and to the technology already depleting some 40 million hectares of our tropical forests.

Human needs are never satisfied; if people rely on nature to sustain itself, they will starve. The Malthusian doctrine says that nature develops at a snail's pace, while human needs soar like a jet.

Indonesia was introduced to the "green revolution" in the 1970s; that was when problems of farmers, industrialization and national politics collided. The government assigned itself as the safeguard of both people's well-being and economic growth.

The government then came to realize that out of over 100 of the world's countries there is a group of the strongest few and that of the vulnerable majority.

The strong countries are marked by rapid scientific development and a powerful national elite that runs the natural wealth of the nation. The strong countries are those that, with an effective system, are able to manage all of their resources: land, natural resources, manpower, capital, sciences.

To join in the race to become strong countries, a national policy was then formulated, called the green revolution. The format of this revolution? Simple, namely one that forces nature to give more, to exploit it efficiently the way an employer exploits its workers.

One of the ways we have been doing this is by counting the increased productivity of each hectare of land. With the assistance of fertilizers and agricultural technology, including the use of superior seedlings, a policy was then implemented to benefit elements beyond the farmers. How?

By arranging affairs in such a way that non-farmers eat aplenty, while the farmers are merely given a chance against dying of starvation.

This double strategy was effective for so long under the New Order: these terms of trade were marked by the gap between the production of the urban and industrialized community and that of rural areas. This always meant lower prices for agricultural compared with manufactured products.

In elementary school in the 1950s I only needed to sell two eggs (at the price of today's worth of Rp 2,000) to afford a writing board or sabak and its writing tool, the grip. Now I would need to sell up to 15 eggs to get a notebook and a pen.

The explanation of this common but imbalanced situation reveals why our farmers suffer the most and are the farthest left behind in development.

Agriculture, as has been said, is ruled by Malthusian law. Because this doctrine is much too cruel for humankind, the cruelty must be shifted to people with the least political power to apply pressure to those in state offices.

The shifting of the cruelty takes place as follows:

1) A national strategy is first formulated which confirms with the Malthusian law. We cannot remain an agricultural society, so we must become an industrialized country. Everybody would agree because this sounds beautiful.

2) It is then agreed that since the urban cost of living depends on purchasing power generated by factories, the government must "protect" the basic prices of commodities to avoid urban political upheaval.

City dwellers can eat their fill and employers can suppress their workers' wages as low as possible without causing them to die of starvation. How?

3) By agreeing that progress toward becoming a strong industrial country must still be supported by a strong agricultural sector.

Such is the core of the "green revolution" concept. What followed was the establishment of various infrastructures such as irrigation, fertilizer plants, warehouses for logistics agencies, all aimed at maintaining low commodity prices so plant owners could reap as much profit as possible and invest further for the progress of their factories, the nation and the state.

4) At this point it is clear that the development strategies of the agricultural sector are nothing more than a lie that has convinced too many people.

It is now time for us to think like sane people. Given widespread reports of manipulation and extortion in government offices such as the State Logistics Agency, it is no longer the time to complain and remain in confusion.

We need to realize that hidden in the development progress and in our management of society is a structural unfairness.

And like any other unfairness, this too must be fought against.

The writer is the director of the Jakarta-based Research Productivity Center survey firm.