Root

Ada beberapa ilustrasi yang pengen gw gambarin di tulisan kali ini, posting pertama setelah beberapa lama.

Ilustrasi pertama, saat perdebatan reformasi jaminan kesehatan di Amerika Serikat (AS) beberapa bulan yang lalu. Presiden Obama mati-matian mengajak anggota DPR Partai Demokrat untuk mendukung paket RUU yang didukungnya.  Dibandingkan dengan UU Jaminan Kesehatan sebelumnya, bisa dikatakan bahwa RUU-nya Obama kali ini lebih menyeluruh dan bahkan disebut sebagian kalangan Partai Republik sebagai RUU berhawa sosialisme. Salah satu anggota DPR Partai Demokrat yang sangat dilematis dalam mendukung RUU Obama tersebut adalah senator asal Nevada, Harry Reid. Dia mendapatkan tekanan dari konstituen negara bagiannya (terutama yang konservatif karena Nevada selalu adalah battleground state antara Republikan dan Demokrat dalam Pemilu AS). Menjawab serangan kaum konservatif atas pendiriannya mendukung RUU Obama tersebut, Reid cukup menjawab “Nevada is my roots”, yang menegaskan kepercayaan dirinya untuk tetap mendapatkan dukungan konstituennya dalam pemilihan sela tengah tahun 2010 nanti. Poll pun menunjukkan bahwa Reid tetap akan mempertahankan posisinya karena (dan bukan “walaupun”) posisinya membela RUU Jaminan Kesehatan Obama.  Harry Reid, politisi kawakan dengan pendidikan yang cukup tinggi (Berkeley) memiliki modal percaya diri yang besar dengan memadukannya dengan roots di antara pemilih Nevada.

Ilustrasi kedua, baru-baru ini, Andi Mallarangeng, seorang Doktor Politik dari Universitas Illinois. Berbekal kapasitas pendidikan dan pengalaman menjadi juru bicara kepresidenan selama empat tahun, mencalonkan diri sebagai partai Demokrat. Hasilnya sudah kita ketahui semua, kalah telak. Banyak pihak mengolok-oloknya sebagai kandidat yang hambur uang melalui kampanye medianya yang besar-besaran namun tidak tepat sasaran. Menurut saya, secara visi-misi, Andi Mallarangeng sudah tepat dengan meletakkan Partai Demokrat sebagai partai tengah, di mana ceruk pemilih terbanyak berada. Namun, visi beserta modal pendidikan yang tinggi tidak disertai dengan basis yang kuat. Andi tidak dapat mengatakan dengan laluasanya bahwa Partai Demokrat adalah akarnya. Ia tidak mampu berkata seperti Harry Reid dengan percaya diri bahwa PD adalah “root“-nya. Ia pun mengakui bahwa ia tidak memiliki komunikasi yang efektif dengan pengurus PD se-Indonesia.

Dua ilustrasi di atas menunjukkan bahwa untuk menjadi dokter sosial yang baik dan workable dalam sebuah sistem yang demokratis, seseorang harus memiliki roots yang memadai. Ia adalah jangkar atau basis bergeraknya seseorang. Hal ini tidak dapat digantikan dengan apapun dalam politik representasi. Keberhasilan pencitraan yang memenangkan SBY dalam pemilu 2009 tetap tidak dapat dipisahkan dari peran komplementernya pada keberhasilan pemerintahan SBY secara umum lima tahun sebelumnya.

Dua ilustrasi di atas juga merupakan pengingatan bagi kita semua. Terutama bagi pihak-pihak yang percaya pada demokrasi, HAM, pengentasan kemiskinan, atau isu-isu lainnya. Sesungguhnya, kondisi dimana seseorang out of touch dengan lingkungannya, tidak pernah dapat tempat dalam demokrasi.

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.

Krugman’s Revolutionary movement, Tarbiyah dan Politik Kampus

Prewords : tulisan ini mungkin sangat ofensif utk beberapa kalangan (for the worst) dan sensitif (for the best). Harap dimengerti bahwa tulisan ini mencoba utk memahami secara akademis (sesuai dgn kapasitas penulis) dan secara subjektif tentu saja dalam memahami arah pergerakan tarbiyah di BEM UI. Tidak lain didasari oleh kepercayaan penulis yang sangat tinggi bahwa semangat pluralisme dan nilai-nilai kebebasan negeri ini perlu dipreserve dari beberapa gerakan2 yg tidak sejalan dengannya, dan lebih banyak masyarakat (terutama mahasiswa dalam hal ini) perlu tau dan paham ttg hal ini. Penulis tidak mengklaim sebagai yg paling paham dan tau, pun penulis tidak mengklaim diri sebagai yg paling sekuler atau paling menjunjung kebebasan. After all, we’re all human with all the developing thought embedded in our very presence.

Ayo kita mulai,

Panjangnya pembukaan tulisan ini di atas sebenernya menggambarkan ketakutan saya utk mengangkat hal ini. Disamping dikarenakan pemahaman saya yang sangat terbatas ttg tarbiyah juga karena “practical implication” yg mungkin terjadi di realitas praktis, maklum, seorang pendukung seorang “politisi kampus” akan sangat mudah dikorelasikan sebagai “sikap” politisi yg didukungnya tersebut, padahal sikap ini memang (mungkin) berbeda sangat dengan pemikiran seorang Imaduddin Abdullah atau Choky Ramadhan. Tapi saya berfikir, justru disanalah keindahan kebebasan berpikir yang telah mendukung Indonesia sebagaimana ia telah mendukung Amerika Serikat dalam perkembangan (dan keterbelakangannya). The only tyrant that we all should accept is afterall our own mind, so be it. Gada orang terlalu bodoh utk mengungkapkan  pemikirannya.

Pemikiran saya terinspirasi dari buku “the great unravelling”  tulisan Paul Krugman tahun 2000-an. Dalam tulisan itu, Krugman menceritakan panjang lebar mengenai “gerakan revolusioner” konservatisme yang menjadi basis kepemimpinan dan karier George W. Bush. Krugman memaparkan bahwa gerakan konservatisme yg dimulai sejak era 1970-an di era Ronald Reagan. Sentral dalam thesis Krugman tentang gerakan konservatisme yang katanya “revolusioner” adalah bahwa gerakan ini bukan gerakan biasa, ada yg spesial mengenai gerakan ini. Buat kalian yg ga “mudeng” ttg konservatisme, gerakan ini percaya secara radikal mengenai peranan yang minimal dari pemerintah pusat, mereka percaya bahwa manusia harus dibebaskan dari segala peraturan pemerintah, jd kebijakannya itu model tax cut, pemotongan subsidi negara, dan laissez faire; apapun keadaan yg dialami masyarakat manapun. Masyarakat ga bisa cukup menganggap perilaku atau manuver mereka sebagai “bussiness as usual” atau “just another politician”. Ada beberapa hal yang membuat mereka sangat revolusioner :

1. jangan berasumsi kebijakan mereka itu sama dengan alasan yang mereka nyatakan. Apapun yg mereka katakan, selalu berujung pada pemerintahan yg minimal. Jd apapun alasannya, mereka akan mencari justifikasi praktis ide2 konservatis mereka akan terpenuhi.
2. coba teliti lebih jauh sebenernya keinginan atau goal akhir mereka itu apa
3. jangan berasumsi “bussiness as usual” atau aturan2 baku organisasi/institusi akan tercipta
4. kalau ada yg ga setuju dengan mereka, bersiap2lah akan diserang balik
5. jangan harap ada batas pada goal gerakan mereka…sampai kapanpun mereka akan berlaku seperti itu

Karena tulisan ini bukan ttg politik ekonomi dunia, saya ga akan menjelaskan panjang lebar mengenai poin2 tersebut di atas dalam dunia politik-ekonomi internasional atau AS. Tp satu hal yg mengejutkan saya adalah, betapa banyak prinsip2 tersebut yg ter-apply dalam tindak tanduk politik kampus di UI, secara spesifik mengenai gerakan tarbiyah.

Buat yang belum mudeng gerakan tarbiyah, saya akan coba jelasin (mungkin saya bukan orang yg paling tepat utk menjelaskan hal ini, tp kyanya mereka ga pernah tuh mempublikasikan gerakan ini; sesuatu hal yg semakin menyamakan mereka pada gerakan revolusioner konservatif di AS). Ketua BEM UI sebelum Imad sampai reformasi itu adalah berasal dari gerakan ini. Mereka (semoga saja benar) bertujuan utk meletakkan dasar-dasar nilai Islami pada setiap sendi gerakan kemahasiswaan (termasuk BEM, DPM, dll). Secara praktis, gerakan ini diterjemahkan dengan “proyek” menempatkan wakil-wakil mereka di seluruh gerakan kemahasiswaan. Hal ini yg membuat saya berasumsi bahwa ya pada akhirnya tujuan akhir mereka adalah kekuasaan, same old politican no? Secara reguler, mereka selalu memproyeksikan kader-kader mereka utk menjadi ketua bem melalui proses seleksi internal utk kemudian menjadi maju bersaing dalam kampanye formal. Mereka juga tak lupa mempersiapkan ketua panitia pemira atau tim-nya utk memastikan proses berjalan mulus. Dalam proses-nya tak lupa, mereka akan men”disiplinkan” kader-kader mereka yang malah membantu kandidat lain, seperti ketika Pandu U. Manggala yang dibantu oleh Kak Ivan Ahda (kalangan tarbiyah). Moreover, gerakan ini secara kultural berada dalam arahan Partai Keadilan Sejahtera. Ok saya cukupkan disini, mungkin penjelasan tarbiyah bs kalian dapatkan sendiri.

What astonished me most adalah betapa aturan2 Krugman tersebut apply dalam gerakan tarbiyah. Ttg prinsip, jangan naif dengan alasan mereka (aturan nomor1), hal ini terlihat jelas dgn insiden aksi demonstrasi yg dilakukan ketika zaman pemilu kemarin. Keputusan utk aksi tersebut janggal karena banyak pengurus BPH BEM UI yg tidak tau alasannya, dan hanya sebagian ketua BEM fakultas yg nampaknya “unanimously” agree utk aksi. Alasan pun banyak dikeluarkan, dari yg mulai menjaga proses pemilu (pdhl udh ada program Pokja yg entah juntrungannya apa) sampai dr penjagaan isu lingkungan yg diinginkan oleh ketua BEM MIPA saat itu (disampaikan saat beliau berkampanye utk jadi ketua bem). Prinsip Krugman nmr 1 ini berkaitan dgn prinsip Krugman no.2, teliti lebih jauh keinginannya apa. Ternyata, arahan utk aksi demonstrasi tersebut sudah “diarahkan” oleh PKS (ya…the party), salah satu teman saya menyaksikan sendiri presentasi arahan tersebut. Para Ketua BEM Fakultas dari Tarbiyah secara sistematis dan terencana berbagi peran utk dibuat seolah2 aksi demonstrasi adalah keinginan kolektif dengan memberikan alasan dan justifikasi masing2 saat rapat. Ketua BEM UI pun mengatakan bahwa aksi adalah dorongan dari fakultas.

Kenyataan tersebut mendorong pada aturan Krugman no.3, yaitu jgn berharap pada praktik institusional yg play by rules. Proses diatas menunjukkan bahwa sebenernya, logika insitusi biasa ga bs menjelaskan proses itu. Salah seorang korbid pun mengatakan bahwa “kalau menyatakan bahwa aksi demonstrasi itu pesanan PKS, buktikan secara fisik”. Yaa mau sampai lebaran kapan pun, ga akan ada buktinya. Sebagai mahasiswa sosial, kita tentu faham bahwa hubungan itu tidak selalu institusional, akan tetapi bs secara kultural dimana hierarki sangat mungkin presence. Penjelasan sesuai aturan akan selalu ada, tp kita tentu paham bahwa itu hanyalah “made-up” justification. Logikanya gampang, jika usul aksi muncul dr ketua bem bukan tarbiyah dan bukan ttg isu pemilu, apakah proses tersebut akan berujung pada hal yg sama? i doubt it very much.

Lebih jauh lagi, kita harus liat pada aturan Krugman no.3 dan 4, yaitu jangan berharap gerakan ini akan “mengampuni” “deffectors” atau bahasa mereka “pengkhianat” (bahasa arabnya lupa). Lihatlah apa yg terjadi dengan kalangan2 Tarbiyah yg memutuskan utk tidak setia pada kandidat “pilihan” tarbiyah, seperti Kak Ivan misalnya, yg menurut “katanya” sudah ga dianggap lg. Atau Bhakti Eko Nugroho yg ingin maju sendiri sebagai MWA UM melawan kandidat tarbiyah, dan dianggap sebagai “pengkhianat” jamaah. Once you deffect, you’re out and never expect to get back. Dan plus, aturan Krugman ke-4, dimana goal mereka tidak pernah ada habisnya. Tarbiyah akan selalu berevolusi dalam cara dan akan selalu mencoba utk kembali. Dari sumber yg sangat confidential, saat ini Tarbiyah bahkan sedang menyusun strategi utk memenangkan kembali kepemimpinan organisasi kemahasiswaan (BEM UI) 2011. Mungkin inilah mengapa mereka memutuskan utk tdk mengirimkan wakil2 mereka pada BEM UI pimpinan Imad. Mereka mungkin berpikiran utk wait and see, once Imad made mistakes, its open for exploitation for next campaign trails.

So, this is just a small piece of the dynamics of Tarbiyah. Saya yakin masih banyak lg contohnya. Ada beberapa poin yg menurut saya perlu ditekankan.

• terlepas dr ketidaksetujuan saya (atau kamu) pada tarbiyah, we can not and should not hate or ban them. Their very presence is basic fact. Alienating them is one fool move. Kita harus menerima keberadaan mereka dan mencoba utk memahami lebih jauh. Masalah setuju atau tidak ya terserah, kalau saya sih sangat tidak menyarankan, karena cara2nya yg nampaknya tidak jauh beda dgn gerakan konservatisme Bush.
• More people should know more about this, including me. Karena dasar dari berkembangnya gerakan ini tidak lain tidak bukan adalah karena ignorance kalangan kebanyakan pada masalah2 kampus dan ga peduli sama tarbiyah, so we let them lead and become how and what they are now. We all play our part. Coba kalau gerakan lain lebih peduli utk scrutinize tarbiyah, mungkin mereka ga akan se-discrete spt sekarang.
• Utk kamu yg meragukan paparan saya di atas, mungkin salah saya. Tp please dont stop finding out. banyak kalangan moderat yg netral berfikir positif, tp guess what, the Krugman rules apply! kalangan tarbiyah akan selalu punya model penjelasan yg discrete dan penuh institution-minded explanation (spt penjelasan ketika aksi).
• Khusus utk kalangan tarbiyah, i hope this writing is not perceived as a call of hatred. This is a call for you to open up, not just your mind but your heart. You can see me as one secular-full of hatred-unreligious and non-sensitive creature, but hey…how many really care about you right now? if you ever believe your mission, no man on earth is fool enough not to get your “real” goal.

Semoga tulisan ini menimbulkan pencerahan. Saya secara pribadi menganggap bahwa gerakan tarbiyah adalah ancaman terhadap insitutional building dan fondasi negara kita (BEM UI kita) karena institusi BEM (atau bahkan negara mungkin) hanya dianggap sebagai “media” atau instrumen utk misi-misi yg menurut mereka kita belum “cukup umur” utk memahami.

Palin to Mega : You Have a Friend in Me

I’m not against Megawati nor Palin, but i believe that it takes some knowledge to be a top-ranking government official. As to this interview,i am awkwardly disturbed as a international relation major student when Palin explains her foreign relations knowledge. Some people just dont suit some position. Check this out guys.

First Post : Whatta “Fuss” is Soeharto?

Assalamualaikum my fellow countrymen (and women)! So here i go…my first serious post. Aha this is what i start to hate about blogging…once yout have it,it’ll feel a bit intimidating of having a blog without being productive in posting some writing…so here it is. Pardon me if it is uninteresting and dull..after all this blog is just a week-old…

Suharto…nice name eh?-why the heck i would write about this dieing (is is spelled dying as in hair dying?ups sorry) human-being, i honestly dont know. There must be something about him that makes everyone in this country a bit itchy of their hands to write some words or their mouth to say something. Maybe it is his name…”SUHARTO” that encourages people…you know…this is “THE” name that once was a guarantee of every pain and gain Indonesia had for almost 32 years. SUHARTO should have been picked by JK Rowling as Harry’s lifetime rival…instead of “Lord Voldermort” (for this one,why the hell Rowling pick such a lame name for an antagonist?). It would be waaay cool to see some Indonesian name mentioned in such a famous book, especially when Rowling put it “him who shouldnt be mentioned” or “him who masters the world of darkness”. But anyway…i dont think it is his name that amused people to talk about him so much recently…afterall it was not that great of a name…take “Patrya” for instance,means more than the old Suharto (Patrya=countryman). Move on…

Then maybe it is his health that moves people to make a lot of fuss about him. Especially after all media talk about that cute little thing in his chest, is it ventilator or something? i’m not sure. They say that that gadget has kept that man alive for quite some time. Well…this kinda makes me think that Indonesia should have adopted “euthanasia” law…so that such an expensive facilities wouldnt bother a lot of people. So if the “ventilator” is the case,then the government should have it sold for everybody…even put it in a ATM machine (you know…like the ATM Condom,imagine “ventilator ATM”,that would make guiness record!). But naaah… i dont think it’s his health. A lot of people suffer much much more than him, and a lot more people use a much expensive and sophisticated facilities to keep them alive. If it is about health…then AIDS, malaria, or TB should have been given some upperhand than his “health system failure with ventilator” (whatta hell kind of desease is that? soo not cool).

Ok…let’s see…and then i think…maybe it was his history that makes people talk about him so much. This is a strong case cuz the man was president of this country for, umm ever (no,i exagerate it…only 3 decades and about 3 generations and several millions of Indonesians and several billions of dollars were at stake, no big deal eh?). Geez…President Putin would have wanted his position now!). He managed to work his way to presidency, ousted Sukarno and probably had killed him slowly but surely (maybe he thought the Bhotto model of killing is way to messy, so just put him in a house arrest…Gosh my cat hates it!). He wasnt that bad though…food sufficiency,done! political stability,done! international role, done! but what cought my attention was the way he’d done population control…i found out that there are at least 2 ways…one is by the family planning program and the other is (which he likes the most) through extermination. Well…some of them went missing and several years later found in some random river with his finger missing or if he’s tired enough…the soldier did it for him. These 2 method of population control program has some advantage…it controlled the growing population of Indonesians and it controlled the “mind, ideas,and movement” of its people. Soeharto apparenly is not very keen on some disagreement. He would like them to be,umm…united. (what if now SBY doesnt like ventilator?imagine! all men with ventilator should give it all up,and there he died!j/k). And then somehow Indonesian realized that they had to end his leadership and he resigned afterall…His wealth is even put under law which enforce his countrymen to check all corruption he’d done ( this kinda makes me think what if my highschool principal put in TAP MPR as one man whose wealth should be investigated,hell i’ll support that!). Well…this reason (his deeds before,as president)…has held on for a while that makes me think that it may be the cause for all fuss about him. But again…doubts crossed my mind. It cant be that! You know…his corruption charges have been there forever and he’s not that powerfull anymore. Afterall…what can a man with ventilator do? he cant even dress  himself! The so-called-democracy is there now and there is no way he can be president again (imagine..a “ventilated-president”? too complicated,sorry).

Then,i’ve come up to the ultimate reason for all the fuss! It found out that his rats, cronys, ass-lickers are all holding position in the government! Oh my god…you have no idea how they love him soo much (i dont know if it was his name,weath,deeds..not his wife definetely,not that pretty). SBY, JK, Wiranto, and hundreds others are by name. Now I understand why JK Rowling enabled Lord Voldermort alive, it was his servants! Imagine if those servants arent there…Lord Voldermort wont make it to Rowling’s books, and Harry Potter’s series wouldnt be bestsellers. And just to complicate the stories…the people, his own countrymen, many of whom have been falsified by the so-called- economic-political stability HAVENT learnt! They still think that Soeharto is their Santa. Rowling couldnt even think about this…i mean most hogwarts hate Voldermort,right? Even Megawati wants to forgive Soeharto, man!!! this is like HarryPotter himself would forgive Voldermort! (well…pardon for the terrible example). Wasnt it her that was unfairly ousted as PDI-chairman by Suharto? wasnt it her whose daddy treated terribly by the man? well…maybe she’s too busy cuz “the bulls” makes the rider easy to forget.

Ouw well…after all…Harry Potter series wouldnt be as exciting if everything is “on track”. There should be some surprises and shit that makes people say “damn it, they shoulda…or crap,he cant do…” But my hope is that Indonesia would make it as “best seller” in the future, and we should all learn. Or would you rather be one of those un-enlightened servants?

Feel free to create some more “Fuss”. I am no Suharto afterall, not with the ventilator at least,hehe.