LA DICCION FORMULAR Y LA RENOVACION DE LA LENGUA EPICA

In the student press, the keyword politik (politics) articulates students’ definitions of their role in national political life. The meanings given to this keyword reflect the ways in which students sought to justify their ongoing role in politics in the context of the New Order’s progressive depoliticisation of society. In the state’s view, students’ role in politics was limited to a conceptual one. Students’ response to this was to define their role in politics as one of the practical manifestations of their role as social control and a product of their sense of social responsibility. After the introduction of the NKK policies, however, students also began to emphasise their constitutional right to engage in politics.

The topic of politics, and in particular the idea that students had a role to play in practical politics, was a significant one in the student newspapers. Consistent with the content analyses cited above (Dari kampus 1979, 37-42; Siregar 1983, 71), Salemba

offers a particularly rich source of articles and editorials dealing directly with students’ role in politics, many of which are from the period leading up to the 1977 elections. The editorial in the 15 December 1976 edition of Salemba, for example, dealt explicitly with the issue of students’ role in ‘practical politics’ (politik praktis). In the 15 February 1977 edition, this topic was again raised in an article on the 1977 elections and an editorial on the role of the student press in practical politics. Gelora Mahasiswa’s February 1977 edition also featured a number of articles on this topic. Salemba’s 20 March 1980 edition, published only two months before the newspaper was banned,

featured both an article and an editorial on students’ role in politics. These were very clearly a response to the introduction of the campus normalisation policy and Daud Yusuf’s redefinition of politics as ‘concept, policy and arena’ (see below; see also chapter five) as well as to the arrest and trial of student activists in 1978-1979. As a result, the article and editorial argued strongly that students’ role in politics was a constitutional right and part of a long historical tradition of activism stemming from students’ sense of social responsibility.

The New Order policy of depoliticisation was a response to the conflict and disorder of the Guided Democracy period. In a series of speeches in 1967-1968 Suharto outlined his vision for the nation. The new political order would provide order, social harmony and economic reform. In such a society, there was no place for the political and ideological struggles and thoroughgoing politicisation of society which had been the hallmark of the last years of Guided Democracy (Elson 2001, 160-1). Over the course of the 1970s, the New Order introduced a number of measures designed to depoliticise Indonesian society. These included the progressive ‘simplification’ of the political parties over the course of the early 1970s, the introduction of the ‘floating mass’ policy, and the creation of corporatist bodies designed to incorporate all segments of society into the state (see Bourchier 1996, 199-214; Reeve 1985, 328-31 and 333)

This policy also impacted on students. Having served their purpose, the students who had rallied against the Old Order in 1965-1966 were urged to ‘return to the school benches’ (kembali ke bangku sekolah) and ‘politically-motivated’ demonstrations (student or otherwise) were banned in the capital (Elson 2001, 160-1). Young people were expected to join KNPI, the corporatist organisation created for youth in 1973, and to contribute their skills to state-run development programs (see chapter two).26 Despite their short term acquiescence to this directive, as noted above, many of the students who wrote in the student newspapers of the late 1960s and early 1970s viewed ‘political struggle’ (perjuangan politik) as an essential part of theirrole.

After 1974, avenues for student involvement in politics became increasingly restricted. One of the more subtle means by which the state achieved this was by separating practical forms of politics from conceptual forms and limiting students’ role to the latter (see also chapter five). Thus, while the SK028 policy introduced by Minister of

26

Education and Culture in 1974 prohibited students from engaging in ‘political activities leading to the disturbance of peace and order’ such as demonstrations, it did allow them to engage in discussions and seminars on political topics. These, the Minister pointed out, represented a means by which the opinions of the academic community could be channelled into solving the nation’s problems (Thajeb 1974, 7). This separation between practical political activities and intellectual political activities was consolidated under Daud Yusuf’s 1978 campus normalisation policy. In his explanations of the policy, Yusuf distinguished between politics as a concept, politics as policy and politics as an arena. As citizens of a democratic country, he argued students were permitted to engage in ‘politics as policy’ and ‘politics as an arena’, but only as ‘youth’ (pemuda) and only outside the campus. Students as students could only engage in conceptual politics (see chapter five). In doing so, both Thajeb and Yusuf appeared to be making concessions to students’ desire (and indeed right) to be involved in political life and at the same time setting the conditions within which this political role could be carried out.

In Salemba and Gelora Mahasiswa during 1975 and 1976 the limitations students faced in undertaking their social and political roles in the light of the SK028 policy was a key concern. While in the mass media government figures bemoaned students’ lack of interest in social issues, arguing that they had become ‘apathetic’, in their own publications students countered that it was the Minster’s decision that had caused the stagnation of student activity on campuses and the consequent apathy and loss of idealism of many in the student body. The dilemma students faced and their frustration at the measures taken by the government led Universitas Pajajaran student Didin S. Damanhuri to comment ‘…if we’re silent, we’re called apathetic, if we act, we’re subversive’ (diam dibilang apatis, bergerak dianggap subversif) (Salemba 15 December 1976, 4).

Students rejected, both implicitly and, after the introduction of the NKK/BKK policy, explicitly, the separation of political ideas and practical action, continuing to define their role in politik as encompassing both political thinking (pikiran politik) and political action (tindakan politik). However, students emphasised that their involvement in political life was not that of a political party or faction but rather was connected to their role as kontrol sosial and to the sense of moral and social responsibility which students felt as educated and socially aware individuals. A 1976 editorial in Salemba

involved in politik praktis should focus on their role as morally motivated social control:

For those idealistic students it is clear that social inequalities and the problems faced by society are a moral burden for which they must seek a solution in accordance with their identity as part of the next generation who are lucky enough to be able to undertake higher education. This means that students’ involvement in politics is only as a moral institution which puts forward criticism, ideas and advice to the government and the society (Salemba 15 December 1976, 4).27

Throughout the student press, politik was often linked to kontrol sosial through a common lexical and conceptual set. Thus, students’ involvement in politics was conceived in terms of correcting ‘irregularities’ (ketidakberesan) within the state and responding to the discrepancy between ‘ideals and practice’ and to ‘the political realities of the states’ practices’ (Salemba 20 March 1980, 4).

As the 1977 election approached, however, students’ role in politics became a central issue, both on and off the streets. In their demonstrations, students called for the abolition of Kopkamtib and criticised the cukong (Chinese conglomerates) phenomena, foreign investment, unregulated state power and the state’s development strategy (Aspinall 1993, 5). As the March 1978 General Session of the MPR approached, student demonstrators also called for Suharto to withdraw as a presidential candidate. Yet despite the fact that the student councils largely responsible for organising the protests also managed the student press, Salemba and Gelora Mahasiswa remained cautious, emphasising social responsibility as the motivation for students’ role in politics. An article in the February 1977 edition of Gelora Mahasiswa, for example, argued that while the campus need not become an actor in practical politics (pelaku politik praktis), it must be engaged with the aspirations of wider society, if it did not want to become an ivory tower for an elite alienated from society (Gelora Mahasiswa

February 1977). Students also defined politics itself in terms which accorded with the organicist values of prosperity and the welfare of all Indonesians which were a central feature of the language of the state’s development policies. In an article in the 15

27

Bagi mahasiswa yang punya idealisme sudah jelas. Bahwa kepincangan-kepincangan sosial, problema-problema yang dihadapi masyarakat adalah beban moral baginya untuk dicarikan pemecahannya. Sesuai dengan identitasnya sebagai bagian dari generasi penerus yang beruntung mengenyam pendidikan tinggi. Ini berarti keterlibatan mahasiswa dengan politik hanyalah sebagai lembaga moral yang mengajukan kritik, gagasan dan saran-saran kepada pemerintah dan masyarakat

February 1977 edition of Salemba, for example, Universitas Indonesia student council chairperson Zainal AS defined ‘practical political life’ (kehidupan politik praktis) as ‘the efforts and activities of all citizens to realise common aims and goals, namely prosperity and the welfare of the people’ (Salemba 15 February 1977, 4).

Students’ rejection of the state’s separation of conceptual forms of politics from practical forms, particularly after the introduction of the 1978 campus normalisation policy, was reflected in the mode of language they employed. As suggested in chapter one, writing and speaking construct different versions of the world: the one as a ‘product’ or ‘thing’ and the other as a series of events and actions. In producing texts, speakers and writers make linguistic choices about the kind of ‘mode’ they will use. These choices, it was suggested, may be socially, culturally or politically motivated. In

Salemba and Gelora Mahasiswa the choices which students make often give their writing a more ‘spoken’ feel than many of the state texts, representing the world in terms of actions and actors. For example, an article in the 20 February 1980 edition of

Salemba on the implications of the campus normalisation policy for students’ role in politics argued that:

…the question that arises is: why can’t students engage in politics? I think because each and every student activity which suggests an element of politics is in the end about securing influence over society. And in this connection, the Government is in a weak position to defend itself against anything that students put forward because students can be more explicit in stating the mistakes and weaknesses of the Government. In fact, the Government still has to prove that it can be trusted by the People. Because of that it is understandable that the Government has a direct interest in ‘depoliticising’ students … (Salemba 20 February 1980, 7).28

In the above example, the simple abstract nouns pemerintah (the government) and

mahasiswa (students) are the primary actors. These actors are engaged in concrete process of ‘doing’ such as berpolitik (engage in politics), merebut (seize, secure),

membela (defend) and men‘depolitisiasi’kan (‘depoliticise’), as well as processes concerned with thinking and feeling such as dipercaya (trusted) and verbal processes

28

…pertanyaan yang muncul ialah: mengapa mahasiswa tidak boleh berpolitik? Saya kira, karena setiap kegiatan mahasiswa yang berbau politis itu pada akhirnya adalah juga merebut pengaruh masyarakat. Dan dalam hubungan ini, Pemerintah mempunyai posisi lemah untuk membela diri tentang apa-apa yang dikemukakan oleh mahasiswa, karena mahasiswa memang bisa lebih gamblang mengatakan kesalahan dan kekurangan Pemerintah. Padahal, sampai sekarang Pemerintah masih harus membuktikan apakah dirinya bisa dipercaya oleh Rakyat. Karena itu bisa dimengerti kalau Pemerintah mempunyai kepentingan langsung untuk men‘depolitisiasi’kan mahasiswa… (Salemba 20 February 1980, 7).

such as mengatakan (to state) and dikemukakan (put forward). This concern with actors and actions constructs students’ role in politics in an active and dynamic way by making action rather than ‘things’ the locus around which meaning is created. In the context of state’s attempts to separate students from practical action, both in official histories (see chapter three) and in the campus normalisation policy, this active representation of students’ role in politics represents a significant challenge to the state’s definitions of students’ role in politics as a conceptual one. At the same time, it also highlights the government’s active role in attempting to prevent students from engaging in politics and the need for the government to actively cultivate the support of wider society by attributing responsibility for actions such as men‘depolitisasi’kan (‘depoliticise’),

membela (defend) and membuktikan (prove) to the government.

The links made between students’ role in politics and their role as a socially responsible force for social control was a response to the very real threat of repression which students faced. By defining their role in politics in terms of social control and the moral-ethical calling of educated youth, students hoped to avoid a political response from the state (see Budiman 1978, 620 and Budiman 1999, 19). This, they hoped, would enable them to continue their role as ‘loyal’ critics of the regime.