Indonesia dalam G20 : Bukan Sekadar Prestise

Diskursus dalam negeri Indonesia yang membahas peranan Indonesia dalam forum utama ekonomi dunia, G20, pada umumnya membahas mengenai kebanggaan Indonesia turut serta dalam forum yang membangun ekonomi dunia pasca Krisis Ekonomi Global 2008. Pernyataan-pernyataan “self congratulating” ini di antaranya disampaikan oleh XXX yang menyatakan bahwa keterlibatan Indonesia dalam G20 merupakan bukti kepedulian Indonesia untuk membentuk tata perekonomian dunia yang lebih representatif bagi emerging markets. Tidak kurang beberapa pejabat tinggi Indonesia menyatakan kebanggaan bahwa Indonesia sebagai satu dari tiga negara di dunia bersama India dan China yang berhasil mencetak pertumbuhan ekonomi positif saat terjadi krisis ekonomi 2008. Sense of pride menjadi anggota “papan atas” ekonomi dunia dalam pernyataan-pernyataan tersebut mungkin dapat dipahami mengingat sejak krisis moneter 1997, Indonesia tenggelam dalam keterpurukan ekonomi-politik internasional setelah sempat disebut sebagai bagian dari “Asian miracles” tahun 1990-an. Tulisan ini hendak mengingatkan bahwa bersamaan dengan partisipasi dalam forum dunia seperti G20, bangsa Indonesia justru perlu bekerja (dan belajar) lebih keras lagi supaya keanggotaan tersebut lebih bermakna dan bermanfaat tidak hanya bagi kesejahteraan rakyat Indonesia, tetapi juga supaya Indonesia mampu bertingkah laku dan berbuat selayaknya “influential middle power”. Alasan utamanya tidak lain adalah beriringan dengan status yang meningkat, hadir pula tanggung jawab yang lebih besar.

Kiprah Jepang dalam forum G7-G8 pada 1970-1980-an selayaknya menjadi pelajaran berharga bagi Indonesia. Jepang sebagai satu-satunya negara “timur” dalam kelompok ekonomi negara-negara maju yang didominasi negara Barat, mengalami proses penyesuaian baik secara ekonomi-politik dalam negeri maupun dalam kebijakan luar negerinya, sebagai konsekuensi logis dari bagian G7. XXX, seorang ZZZ ketika itu menyatakan bahwa kiprah Jepang dalam G7-G8 pada tahun-tahun awalnya merupakan sebuah proses pembelajaran bagi Jepang bagaimana untuk berperilaku selayaknya “big power”. Salah satu pelajaran bagi Jepang adalah bagaimana kebijakan ekonomi luar negeri mulai menjadi topik yang hangat dibicarakan dalam diskursus domestik Jepang. Warga dan pemerintah Jepang mulai sadar bahwa preferensi dan perilaku ekonomi-nya memiliki konsekuensi secara internasional, terutama saat menyadari bahwa politik ekonomi dumping yang diterapkannya telah merugikan produk-produk domestik negara-negara tujuan ekspornya. Selain itu, Jepang juga mulai mengambil posisi strategis sebagai negara yang amat berkomitmen dengan bantuan-bantuan luar negerinya (Official Development Assitance, ODA) pada negara-negara berkembang. Pembentukan tata-keuangan internasional juga menjadi perhatian warga dan pemerintah Jepang supaya Jepang proaktif dengan mempertimbangkan konsekuensi tata-keuangan internasional tersebut bagi Jepang.

Bagaimana dengan Indonesia? diskursus yang terjadi di dalam negeri pasca merebaknya Krisis Ekonomi Global 2008, selain keriuhan Pemilu 2009, adalah mengenai kebijakan bail out Bank Century.Terlewatinya periode krisis dengan baik tidak berhasil dijadikan momentum oleh mayoritas politisi dan rakyat Indonesia untuk semakin giat membangun Indonesia menuju pemain global yang lebih dari sekadar prestise “salah satu negara dengan growth positif saat krisis” atau “satu-satunya negara ASEAN yang menjadi anggota G20″. Kegagalan untuk menangkap “sinyal” internasional ini juga tampak saat berbagai kalangan dalam negeri, pejabat, politisi, pengusaha, penggiat LSM secara tiba-tiba mempermasalahkan berlakunya perjanjian perdagangan bebas ASEAN-China yang telah diwanti-wanti sejak 2003 (tujuh tahun yang lalu). “Kegagapan telanjang” seperti ini selayaknya menjadi pelajaran bagi seluruh sektor domestik Indonesia untuk berupaya secara proaktif memahami fenomena-fenomena politik-internasional yang berpotensi berpengaruh terhadap kesejahteraan rakyat Indonesia.

Dalam pertemuan-pertemuan G20 pada 2010 ini yang rencanaya akan diselenggarakan di Korea Selatan dan di Kanada, patut kita nantikan bagaimana kiprah Indonesia di dalamnya menjadi perhatian bangsa ini. Serangkaian issu dalam pertemuan tersebut menjadi arena di mana Indonesia dapat menempatkan diri dan mencoba mencari solusi. Salah satu isu adalah ketidakseimbangan ekonomi dunia (global imbalance) dimana China dan kawasan Asia dengan tingkat tabungan yang tinggi dan ekspor besar dihadapkan dengan AS dan negara-negara Eropa dengan tingkat konsumsi tinggi dan tabungan rendah. Apabila ketidakseimbangan global ini tidak segera diatasi dengan China yang lebih “jujur” akan nilai mata uangnya yang teramat rendah dan AS yang perlu meningkatkan tabungan nasionalnya, krisis seperti tahun 2008 tidak akan segera pulih. Posisi Indonesia sebenarnya amat rentan terhadap konsekuensi upaya mengatasi ketidakseimbangan global tersebut karena ia dapat dijadikan sasaran trade-diversion produk ekspor China dari AS dan negara-negara maju lainnya dan mengalami penurunan permintaan ekspor ke AS mengingat Paman Sam hendak mengurangi konsumsinya. Indonesia perlu memastikan bahwa China tidak mempergunakan pasar negara berkembang sebagai sasaran pengalihan ekspor karena hal tersebut akan mematikan industri (manufaktur terutama) dalam negeri dan memastikan bahwa AS dan Eropa tidak menutup pasarnya dari produk ekspor Indonesia. Hal ini sangat dilematis karena sedikit berlawanan dengan upaya mengatasi ketidakseimbangan ekonomi global.

Isu di atas hanya salah satu isu yang selayaknya menjadi perhatian utama berbagai elemen dalam negeri Indonesia. Langkah Indonesia secara jangka panjang untuk ”mengamankan” sumber-sumber pertumbuhan ekonomi (seperti ekspor yang bergantung ke negara-negara maju) patut ditiru. Hanya dengan perhatian proaktif Indonesia dapat menghindari kegagapan-kegagapan dalam isu-isu internasional selanjutnya. Kisruh politisi berkepanjangan dalam kasus Century jelas merupakan hal terakhir yang dibutuhkan negeri ini.

Insider’s View of Indonesian Student Movement: More Perspiration than Inspiration

The term “more perspiration that inspiration” was popularly introduced by MIT economist Paul Krugman when he was explaining the phenomenon of the Asian economic miracle series in the 1990’s which was based on more and more labor work with less and less wage, resulting in the boom economic that was ironically ended in the East Asian Financial Crisis 1997-1998. In this writing, however, let me borrow the term as I would like to tell readers about one particular element within our new-vibrant democracy, the student movement, which has always been one key element of our country’s long journey even before our independence. My main argument is that the current movement practiced by our students in general in Indonesia, as one important political force, has been less of an inspiration for our democracy despite the attempt of keeping its existence and relevance in the much more political dynamics of Indonesia in its 12^th year of Reformasi. I myself, has been involved in the so-called “student movement” practice since 2007-2009 as part of Badan Eksekutif Mahasiswa (BEM) or student body government of University of Indonesia, taking part in several student demonstrations within the years. This article, hence, is more of a self-reflection in the purpose of getting more understanding for the broader audience about what has been happening inside the movement (that is, particularly in the BEM), and for students about how to honestly view our movement.

The (perceived) Legacy

            One important aspect we have to put into account in understanding Indonesian student movement is that the historical legacy that we, current Indonesian student activist, perceive. This sense of “legacy” is derived from the role of Indonesian youth in 1928 “Youth Oath” which marked the very first explicit calls for nationalism in the Indonesian modern era. This was followed by the significant role played by the so called “youth” (pemuda) on urging Soekarno-Hatta on declaring Indonesian independence while sort of isolating the two charismatic leaders in Rengasdengklok. This was not to mention the numerous Indonesian youth scholars as well as activists in Indonesian history towards independence.

            The legacy was then followed through in the early years of independence. One notable figure was Soe Hok Gie, a Chinese descent University of Indonesia’s student that was tragically died during his travel to the volcanic mountain of Semeru (1969). He was very vocal in criticizing the Soekarno regime (orde lama) through many of his writings as well as his leadership in many demonstrations at the times. However, his legacy is still alive within many current Indonesian student activists. His ideas were put into a book such as “Note from a Demonstrator” (Catatan Harian Seorang Demonstran) in 1983, a biography by John Maxwell in 1997, and even made into movies in 2005, played by actor Nicholas Saputra and resulted in rave reviews from Indonesian large audience.

            And then there were two other events that are worth noted if we would like to see the perceived legacy from Indonesian past student movement: the 1974 “Malari” event (literally means “15^th of January tragedy”) where large student protest was happening confronting the visits of Japanese Prime Minister that was perceived as bringing back colonialism to Indonesia. This generation of Malari was now even features in Indonesian politics, such as former Golkar’s chairman Akbar Tandjung and political activist Fadjroel Rachman. The other event was of course the toppling of Soeharto regime. The image of a large mass of students, wearing their almamater jacket, invading the parliament building has been all around within the hearts and minds of Indonesian student movements until now.

            Those historical aspects play important roles in shaping how Indonesian student activists perceive its environment and themselves nowadays. Firstly, we portray student movement as a “heroic” image movement. A large mass of students that are against the tyranny, regardless what issue we are facing or what audience we are targeting. In fact, there was a funny story where some students, when doing a demonstration, asked some police to do a bit of a hard treatment against them; so that the demonstration could get some reviews from the press (the image of police authority cracking students’ demonstration has always been ironically desirable for Indonesian student activist). In fact, participation in a demonstration has developed into some kind of “criteria” to be called an activist.

            Second, there is a large sense among Indonesian student activist of the ability of toppling a ruler (in many cases, the president). Regardless of the actual history of Soekarno, Soeharto, and Gus Dur toppling from their presidency, student activists believes that they have always been a key element in the rise or fall of Indonesian political leaders. To put it in a larger context, Indonesian student activists have always been putting themselves as in opposition of the government. The first thing that comes up in the discussion among activist would be “what to criticize from which issue”. There is some kind of norms circulating within many student movement organizations such as BEM that being a student activist is equal to being in opposition to the government. In a more practical situation, there is no way a student can be president of certain student political movement if he/she takes a soft stance against the government.

Putting the movement within context

            Through the above perception and mode of thinking, a student movement activist exists within the socio-political dynamics of Indonesia, reaching now it’s 12^th year of Reformasi. The politics of information has developed into a mode that was unthinkable to happen before 1997-1998. A student activist is no longer the only elements that are vocal in the society. There are now hundreds of civil society groups, NGO, religious group, as well as numerous political youth organizations. They organize demonstrations, campaign, rallies, events, you name it. These various organizations are now doing something that used to be exclusive of student activism. Moreover, the type of the regime has changed. Democracy is getting normalized by the fluid of freedom of press and expression. Elections are held regularly. People can say whatever they want about everything practically. As the source of democratic power varies, many groups are actually supported by some political forces. In this sense, student activism is pulled to various political forces, making them prone to cooptation.

            The above macro-political context is met with the mind-set perceived by many student activists. Student movement hasn’t found a common basis for their movement. There is not the common enemy as the movement in 1960’s, 1970’s, and 1998’s. The theme of the movement hasn’t been focused and well-articulated enough. There has been attempt to emulate the kind of message as the “tritura” (three people’s demand) in late 1960’s such as “Saptatura” (seven People Demand) comprising a very broad themes of demands to the governments). The method of the movement hasn’t much changed either, relying mostly on demonstration, fantasizing themselves as in 1960’s or 1998’s. Slogans are everywhere and it doesn’t need to be academic as long as you condemn the government’s failure, you can give oratory speech.

In search of new nest

            The mismatch between socio-political context and the mindset has resulted in the decreasing of roles and influence of student movement activism in Indonesia. Instead of being the effective medium within the Indonesian society towards the betterment, the movement has even lost more and more legitimacy, from the “people” (rakyat) it tries to represent, from fellow students, as well as from political elite of the country.

            The people’s response towards the current student movement is easily shown by the widespread worries from many university students’ parents if their children would be part of the demonstrations. This worry of parents reflects at least two things related to student movement activism: lack of legitimacy in terms of substance and in terms of methods. In terms of substance, this phenomenon reflects another mismatch of what the student activist thinks they’re fighting for and what the general public thinks what they need. For instance, I can assume that while the student activists are calling for “SBY be responsible for Century case”, the majority of the people are rather uninterested and would rather have the case closed as soon as possible. In terms of method, the heroic picture of demonstration doesn’t attract the majority public as it used to in 1998 or before. Instead of support, people are more and more concern of demonstration that causes traffic jams everywhere.

            Moreover, even among fellow university students, there has been widespread of declines of interest or sympathy towards student movement activism. There is less and less people would incline to participate in demonstration. Demonstration has turned out to be some kind of “tourism” as many students who participated for the first time in demonstration happily takes photograph of them during a demonstration. There is also more and more other organization or interest group set up in respected universities that seem to be of more values for students’ future carrier than participating in a political movement. This is not to mention how low the political elite of Indonesia see student movement nowadays. Many university student bodies are actually well-influenced by several political parties, resulting in the co-opted political message. This lack of legitimacy results the changing theme of student movement activism into a “legitimacy-seeking” game.

            This current situation is very much in contrast to how previous student movements in Indonesia. The Boedi Oetomo movements in 1908 kicked start the revolution of Indonesian way of thinking as a nation. The 1945 youth generation plays important part in accelerating and balancing the old group to declare independence. Not to mention the whole student movement during the Orde Lama and Orde Baru that inspires Indonesian people about the idea of democracy. Yes it is true that some of Indonesian movements during this period were portrayed in a heroic, anti-government and anti-colonialization. But it was the name of the game then. Now it is a different game we are playing. A movement needs to find the right nest or the right social context to inspire its society.

            The Indonesian student movement activism in the Reformasi Era hasn’t inspired Indonesian people to anywhere. Instead we have been working hard the wrong work which is finding our legitimacy with the old mind set. We are getting less and less sympathy from the broad public, let alone our own friends and our government. There are several things that should be noted about the development of student movement activism in Indonesia, to get out of the hole. First, we must rethink our role as “student”. Being a student activist literally means that we are student first then an activist. But so far, we have been an activist without any academic color. We demanded things from the authority without actually understanding the complexity of issues nowadays. Secondly, student movement activist must abandon completely the “victim mentality”. As history showed us, student movement in Indonesia always set the trends, not just followed the trend. The idea of Indonesia wasn’t even well-articulated before Boedi Oetomo in 1908. This is very much different right now, where student activists are just being vocal in response to today’s issue. Even when you look at the demand, nothing’s really new and the public can’t even comprehend it. Third, student movement should rethink the kind of campaign it undertakes. Demonstration is no longer seen as necessary and desirable. Today’s campaign is more of a public relations campaign rather than heroic campaign. And lastly, student movement should find ways to ally more with academic world, the roots of its existence and the people, the very society it lies its all movements. This is important because in the era where everyone can say without any constraint, politics of knowledge is needed most and nobody could articulate it better than student with academic and people-based insight.

Time to Inspire         

            The new way towards this new nest has been tried by some student activists themselves. It is just the effort hasn’t been successful in terms of breaking the old norms of “heroic movement” and thus hasn’t transmitted the message to its stakeholder (let alone their fellow students). Some notable efforts are worth mentioned here. As in early 2010, the student activist of Bandung Technological University (ITB) held University Student Conference in an event called “ITB Fair 2010”. The goal of this event is to reorient student activism from vertically demanding to the government, to a more community service based program. Involving many other student activists all over Indonesia, this kind of reorientation is exactly what is needed to make student movement an inspiration for Indonesian society.

            The road to reorientation is a long journey that can not be achieved simply through one event or conference. It needs consistency and sometimes put the “reformer” at odds with its fellow activists as well as some political elite seeking their support for some political cause. For example, the road to reorientation is surely difficult for student movement organization that relies heavily on the support from some political party under bow. At the same time, the dynamics of political situation in Indonesia will always lure student activist to be vocal in certain “sexy” issue, even when they actually don’t pay attention to the issue before the mass media brings it up. In short, the culture of “reaction” should be put aside, giving the student movement’s priority to do some concrete actions. It is time for Indonesian student movement activist to set the agenda themselves instead of being a tool for the higher political elite.

             I am not writing this just because I am part of them, but this is also because of our country needs student movement as an important of its development and our democracy. We need to find the right nest of this movement, suitable to nowadays’ condition.

Rough Times for Pro-Market and Liberal Wing Reformers

If we take a look at most issues surfaces after the 2009 presidential election, it has been a series of huge blows for those advocating Indonesian economic and political reform towards a more market-oriented, essentially liberal agenda. One issue that absorbs more attention than any other issue is for sure the Century Scandal that put two of the most prominent icons of Indonesian economic architect since the fall of New Order Regime who are also considered part of the more liberal, pro-market, and right agendas, Vice President and former Central Bank Governor Boediono and Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati. The two figure’s involvement in the Century Bank bail-out turns out to be the most politicized issue in SBY’s second term so far. Then along the way and was a bit overshadowed by the Century scandal, there has been China-ASEAN Free Trade Area issue which has been modestly scrutinized by Indonesian public, especially with the worry that the agreement would do Indonesian economy more harm than good since the Chinese products superiority seems too hard to handle. These two issues have created a nightmare arena for the pro-market and liberal wing of Indonesian socio, economic, and political thought; while created a rising prominence for the left wing, essentially populist, factions. This is such an anticipated series of events for the pro-market reformer sides, given their hard work on the much domestically under-estimated achievement of Indonesia’s success on surviving the global economic crisis and raising Indonesia’s profile internationally as it is now a key member of the G20 grouping. 

            Far from the spotlight of the Parliament hearing of those involved in Century scandal, media interviews, and hoo haa regarding the Indonesian’s participation within the China-ASEAN Free Trade Area, we can notice that there are two distinctive economic and political thoughts competing one another in shaping Indonesian path towards development. One faction is the pro-market reformer, liberal and thus considered the right wing. This wing has been vigorously initiating market reform within a more market oriented agenda as well as integrating to the world’s economic agenda. To mention a few of their proposals are the reconfiguration of Indonesia’s gas subsidy policy (less but more direct and target oriented subsidy), reforming Indonesia’s investment climate so then it attracts more foreign investment needed for the growth, free trade agendas (ACFTA is just one of them), and more strategically permissive towards relationship with the West. This wing’s prominent figure includes Sri Mulyani and Boediono themselves, Chatib Basri (currently an advisor to economic ministry), Mari Elka Pangestu (Trade Minister), Faisal Basri (lecturer in University of Indonesia), Dorodjatun Kuntjoro-Jakti (former Indonesian’s chief negotiator for the IMF during 1997 crisis), the Malarangeng brothers, Anggito Abimanyu (director general of Fiscal Affair), Darmin Nasution (caretaker of Central Bank Governor). To sum it up, this wing has been practically behind every SBY’s economic initiatives since first elected as president.

            Then there is another wing, which is more inclined to populist (or rather socialist), nationalistic, closed economic-political thinking. This wing’s major proposal is practically exactly the opposite of the right wing’s proposal. They propose a heavy government involvement in economy, especially large subsidy in every public goods; are always opposing any privatizations initiatives even when the state firms have been more of a burden for the state, are suspicious of any free trade agenda; and especially hostile towards foreign investment which perceived as detrimental to Indonesia’s environmental and local economy condition. Some prominent figures are Hendri Saparini (economist of Executive Advisory Group in Economic, Industry and Trade), former Economic Ministries Coordinator Rizal Ramli, academic Ichsanudin Noorsy and Sri Edi Swasono, economist and PAN politician Dradjat Wibowo, and former economic minister Kwik Kian Gie.

            Before the whole showdown of Century Scandal and ACFTA issue, the stage was mostly controlled by the pro-market reformer. The fact that several of them are holding key government economic posts, which is essentially creating a close tie with Yudhoyono party, gets them the upperhand, while the left wing voice were largely unheard. In fact, SBY’s second term victory was an indirectly public’s relatively satisfaction of its economic performance. The politically (although economically supported) motivated gas price decline, foreign debt ratio decline to just 30% of GDP, positive growth despite the global economic crisis are just to mention a few of this wing’s achievement. Not to mention the successful unprecedented reform of the Finance Ministry under the leadership Sri Mulyani who were then awarded as the best finance ministry in Asia.

            The happy story for the pro-market wing was then interrupted by the Century Scandal. There has been an opinion that the scandal is mostly politically motivated since the bail out decision itself was approved and the final budget report was unanimously approved by all parties before SBY’s triumph in 2009 election. This political stage provides a rare opportunity for the left wing group to take center stage. They wasted no time in attacking every policy taken by the opposite camp regarding the bail out decision and ACFTA negotiation. In the process, they have found the unlikely allies of several politicians opposing SBY’s administration even before the Century case surfaced. And at the same time, the free-market found some support from the equally politically motivated Democratic Party politicians. This coalition between academic figure and politician is quite unprecedented in Indonesian’s democracy as the blur economic-political thought has been the main characteristic of Indonesian various political parties. The prospect of the agglomeration of certain political parties with certain economic-political thought is one to be seen in the future.      

            For the time being, it remains to be seen how the pro-market wing can make comebacks from this mess. The political process is very likely decides its future. For the left wing, they’ve been gaining more and more momentum if the outcome of this Century scandal is in their favor. Recently, they formed an organization “Indonesian Economic Political Association”, calling themselves as “anti-neoliberal”, their claim of the pro-market wing. The opposition between the two will determine the path of Indonesia’s economic-political development, either pro-market and integrating to world’s economy or populist and rather nationalistic model.

Learning from 2 “away matches”

Without any intention of showing off which is quite habitual at times with my life (in a humble way), being outside of my country, or i should say my first and closest macro imagined community, has always been giving me a series of exciting new perspectives and understanding (and misunderstanding) about ourselves, our country, and our world. Yes guys, this writing isnt about away matches as in football matches, but this is about away as in being abroad-outside of our countries, and “matches” as i believe every stage in our live should always be one small path of match or game towards more understanding (winning) and/or more misunderstanding (lost) which happens interchangebly.

During my first away matches, which was completed aout 4 years a go, i learnt for the first time that the world is indeed full of universalism yet at the same time we are all very unique, different. I learnt that the medium among society sometimes fails to represent the actual facts. I leart that what they call as “western war-monger” are actually peace-loving. I leart that what they call as “champions of individualism” is actually one of the most communal society that I know. All in all, my first away matches, gave me a lesson of humanity.

Then several years later, i cant believe i’m in yet another away matches. This time i am more pragmatic and matured (i think). I already leart that life is sometimes more suitable to realist world. Men can be bad at times. Afterall, the universalism of humanbeing good faith is equal to humanbeing bad faith, and its a simple fact. I cant believe my mind has been fed with a bit more predispotition, more barrier that i thought i had. That’s what happens when you dont bring your mind outside your box for a while, yes, your mind starts generating more barriers.

The second away matches isnt finished yet. It’s barely finished its first half. But i can sense that there’s more of a realism lesson out if this match. I can sense that we ought to fight our way to get a place in this world. This should be a counterbalance towards my first away lesson, i figured. However, for now, i still have to continue this second match. Hopefully, i can always follow this with many many more matches. And i hope the more matches i play, the more winning i get (more understanding instead of misunderstanding).

Sorry for being abstract, but im sure you’ll get it. Cheers.

Rame-Rame Gerakan Mahasiswa

Artikel ini ditulis dengan motivasi agar mahasiswa di Indonesia, setidaknya mahasiswa di UI mendapatkan sedikit lagi gambaran apa sih sebenarnya yang disebut dengan “gerakan mahasiswa”, yang akhirnya membuat kita semua jadi sedikit lebih peduli untuk ngelakuin sesuatu. Dorongan lain adalah istilah “gerakan mahasiswa” yang, menurut saya setidaknya, sudah mendapatkan “tempat khusus” yang tidak begitu positif dengan terus diasosiasikan dengan demonstrasi atau kegiatan-kegiatan yang sifatnya politis. Keterlibatan saya dalam waktu singkat di beberapa organisasi kemahasiswaan kaya BEM juga menjadi motivasi tulisan ini supaya BEM UI bs lebih mampu menempatkan diri sesuai konteksnya di Indonesia yang kayanya (dan harusnya on the move) ini.

Pertama, ada beberapa hal yang udah berubah sama keadaan kampus kita ini dengan jaman-jaman sebelumnya, termasuk dgn jaman kemerdekaan (ya iyalah), jaman 1966, jaman 1998 dan harusny sih sama jaman2 2000-2004. Perbedaan pertama itu adalah makin banyaknya organisasi atau perkumpulan yang berdasarkan minat dan bakat mahasiswa. Dulu, sepertinya (maap klo sok tau) yang populer dan utama model-modelnya senat, kelompok-kelompok politik model Kammi,gmni,hmi,dll;  perkumpulan-perkumpulan olahraga dan seni, grup pencinta alam model mapala. Turun-temurun kayanya organisasinya itu terus secara konsisten. Grup-grup ini selalu jd “trademark” buat istilah “aktivis”. Sekarang, grup-grup ini makin banyak, baik dr jumlahnya ataupun dari peminatannya. Senat atau BEM ga lagi jd idola atau malah sering disebut ga penting. Cukup cari temen lebih dari 10 orang dan udah bs bikin perkumpulan tertentu. Klo ngutip kata-kata di HI, terjadi proliferasi organisasi dan network.

Perbedaan kedua adalah kelas-kelas grup-grup itu jd lebih menyebar, engga lg ada kesan satu perkumpulan atau organisasi lebih “berkelas” dibandingkan organisasi lainnya. Hidup dan mati satu perkumpulan itu ya ditangan orang-orangnya sendiri. “Delinking” atau ketidaknyambungan atau “idup sendiri-sendiri” ini cukup terasa. Misalnya waktu itu, saya pernah dicuhati salah-satu anggota grup choir UI yang kabarnya sedang dililit kesulitan keuangan. Masalah yg sebenernya sangat mungkin terjadi dgn hampir seluruh grup ini ya diperjuangkan habis2an oleh grup choir itu sendiri dengan mencari advokasi kepada rektorat. Entah berhasil atau tidak, yg jelas menurut saya, kesulitan itu akan lebih mudah teratasi bila, organisasi-organisasi lain atau minimal yang sejenis di bidang seni menganggapnya sebagai “persoalan bersama” bukan masalah grup itu aja.

Ketiga, maapin klo saya ga ada angka pastinya, tapi bedanya organisasi/grup mahasiswa jaman sekarang itu makin bs nge-attract banyak partisipan/anggota dengan seberapa besarnya organisasi itu bs relevan dgn perkembangan personal atau karier mahasiswa. Makin besar relevansi nya makin gede peminatnya. Mungkin beberapa kalangan mencibir sebagai “CV seeker” tapi itu kenyataannya dan cukup positif juga. Lihat aja peminat AIESEC dengan peluang ke luar negeri-nya, EDS dengan peluang link kompetisi dan link network yang sangat baik, belum lagi MSS di manajemen, panitia Bedah Kampus dengan keuntungan sangat besarnya. Intinya, semakin besar peluang mendapatkan pengalaman, link, network, makin “laku” organisasi itu sekarang.

Perbedaan selanjutnya adalah metode dalam beraktivitas yang makin bermacam-macam.Cukup dgn membuat “event” di facebook yang dipoles dengan iming-iming sertifikat dan makan siang gratis, sebuah acara seminar biasa-biasa aja bisa mendatangkan banyak peserta. Beragam workshop, training, kunjungan, dilakukan utk beragam isu, dr mulai konservasi lingkungan, sampai sekadar fund raising. Bisa kita liat bahwa banyak kegiatan itu adalah untuk meng-attract partisipan, selain tentu saja untuk goal utama kegiatannya. Organisasi-organisasi atau grup-grup ini berkompetisi.

Ada beberapa konsekuensi logis dari berubahnya jaman skrg. Pertama, organisasi/grup di kampus musti kompetitif dengan nunjukkin relevansinya utk perkembangan mahasiswa. Personal gain untuk mahasiswa semakin harus ditunjukkan,ga bisa lg cuma untuk “mengabdi” atau altruistik melayani dengan ikhlas. Kedua,metode beraktivitas (atau “bergerak” kalau ngikutin istilah aktivis tradisional) semakin beragam. Kita juga skrg musti paham utk tidak lg mengasosiasikan kata “gerakan” dengan keadaan mahasiswa berjaket kuning berbaris di jalan dengan salah satu pemimpin mereka berada di depan mobil sound. Konsekuensi lainnya adalah semakin pentingnya “network” dan bidang “penelitiandan pengembangan” (R&D istilahnya) buat organisasi. Organisasi ga bs lg ngandelin anggotanya doang. Dia musti ngembangin sayap yang juga berguna utk menghubungkan organisasinya dengan dunia kerja sebenarnya. “Linkage” dengan dunia kerja inilah yang seringkali dilupakan, terutama oleh lembaga-lembaga kampus yang lama macamnya BEM.

Pepatah di jaman sekarang katanya “either you compete or perish”. Ini juga yang saya sangat harapkan dari organisasi BEM. Ga bisa lagi kita eksis di dunia pergerakan mahasiswa yang makin beragam dan makin kompetitif ini dengan “menjual” pelayanan tanpa pembelajaran, jargon “berjuang untuk rakyat atau berjuang bersama rakyat”. Metode beraktivitas yang beragam, network, dan linkage dengan dunia kerja adalah sebagian kecil hal yang harus digarap oleh penggiat BEM UI skrg yang digarap dengan maksimalisasi fungsi Litbang utk bisa menangkap kebutuhan itu. Fungsi BEM sebagai fasilitator atau jembatan organisasi-organisasi yang banyak itu juga salah satu area relevansi BEM UI.