LOS DIVERSOS GENEROS

The state’s attempts to define students’ political role as a conceptual one set limits for the ways in which students were able to speak about their roles and identities in the student press. In response to this, students stressed that the motivations for their participation in ‘practical politics’ were not political but moral.29 Thus, while students defined their role as a ‘force’ (kekuatan) in national politics, they prefixed this with the term moral. As with their emphasis on social control and social responsibility as the justification for their role in practical politics, students’ emphasis on their moral motivations aimed to provide a framework which would enable them to continue their role in political life without presenting themselves as a threat to the state.

29

Budiman suggests that students’ emphasis on their role as a moral force can be likened to the role of the reclusive Javanese sages or resi (see Budiman 1976, 57-8 and 61; Budiman 1978, 622). See also below.

The term kekuatan moral emerged in student discourse in the aftermath of the 1966 student demonstrations. In the late 1960s, students’ increasing disillusionment with the failures of the new regime led them to seek ways of justifying their continuing role in the political process. Douglas notes, for example, that after 1966 students responded to the ‘political and moral deviations of the nations’ leaders’, and their failure to adhere to ideals of the struggle for independence, by defining their movement in moral terms (1970, 165; see also Budiman 1973, 79; Budiman 1978, 618; Raillon 1985, 26). For some, such as the student leaders appointed to the DPR in 1968, this role was best undertaken through direct participation in the political process.30 For others, however, students’ place was outside the formal political system.

In the student press of the mid to late 1970s the idea of students’ morality, idealism and conscience as the motivation for their actions occupied a key place.31 Significantly, the terms for these concepts appeared most often in articles and editorials on the topic of students’ role as kontrol sosial (see for example Salemba 16 June 1976 and the editorial in Gelora Mahasiswa July 1976). Concepts of morality and idealism also framed discussions of students’ role in practical politics (see for example the editorials in

Salemba 15 December 1976 and Salemba 1 September 1977). In these articles and editorials, students’ role as a kekuatan moral (moral force) was reflected in their designation as a principled and politically disinterested force committed to truth (kebenaran) and justice (keadilan). The term kekuatan moral was also defined by its links to a broader lexical set describing students’ moral characteristics. The terms

murni (pure) and hati nurani (conscience), for example, signified students’ integrity: the idealism (idealisme) and sensitivity (kepekaan) which called them ‘to struggle to uphold justice and truth’ (berjuang menegakkan keadilan dan kebenaran) (Salemba 1 September 1977, 1).32 Murni also referred to students’ ‘purity’ from external political

30

Those appointed included 1966 activists Cosmas Batubara, Fahmi Idris, Mar’ie Muhammad, Johnny Simandjuntak, David Napitupulu, Liem Bian Koen, Soegeng Sarjadi, Nono Anwar Makarim, Yozar Anwar, Slamet Sukirnanto, and Sofyan Wanandi (Culla 1999, 68; Raillon 1985, 59-60). Many of these individuals went on to have successful political careers under the New Order.

31

Emmerson (1973, 291) notes that W.S. Rendra was ‘the leader of a briefly active group whose pretentious name – the Gerakan Moril (Moral Movement) – was intentionally ridiculed by its own acronym – GERMO (PIMP)’.

32

Students’ idealism and morality was also a feature of the state discourse on students. The Basic Guidelines for the Improvement and Development of the Young Generation (Pola Dasar Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Generasi Muda), introduced by Minister of Education and Culture Daud Yusuf in 1978 stated that ‘Purity of idealism, courage, a spirit of service and sacrifice and a strong sense of social responsibility are the elements which need to be fostered and developed as the ‘Noble Attitude’ of Indonesia’s young generation as the defenders and upholders of truth and justice for society and the nation (cited in Kansil 1986, 108). [Kemurnian idealisme, keberanian, semangat pengabdian dan pengorbanan serta rasa tanggung jawab sosial yang tinggi adalah unsur-unsur yang perlu dipupuk dan

interests. This was articulated in the use of terms such as ketanpapamrihan

(disinterestedness), tanpa pilih bulu (impartiality), kebebasan (freedom) and

independen (independent) (Salemba 15 December 1976, 4; Salemba 15 January 1977, 8; Salemba 1 September 1977, 8).

Students’ representations of their role as a kekuatan moral in national political life served an important legitimating function. By arguing that they undertook their role as

kontrol sosial and koreksi from a position of morality and political disinterestedness, students represent their criticisms not as those of a group seeking political power but as in the best interests of the nation and the rakyat as a whole. In this view, students are the voice of integrity, justice and truth and the conscience of the nation. As a 1977 article in Salemba argued, criticism (kritik) is more valuable when it is undertaken by those who are respected, either because of their knowledge, position or personal integrity and when it is motivated by a sense of responsibility and devotion (Salemba 1 March 1977, 5). The emphasis in the discourse of the student press on students’ moral integrity, coupled with their status as future intellectuals (see below) and their strong sense of responsibility, thus validates students’ criticisms. At the same time, by representing their own role as moral and without political interests, students position the state in an antithetical way. By implication, to the extent that the state chooses to ‘suspect’ (mencurigai) students’ actions and accuse them of being exploited (ditunggani), rather than act on their suggestions, then it is not acting in the best interests of the nation and the rakyat, nor are its actions guided by the ‘moral’ principles of justice and truth.

Students’ representation of their role as a moral force neatly articulates the contradictions in their definitions of their roles and identities in the context of the shifting power relationships between themselves and the state. The term kekuatan moral represents a juxtaposition of two seemingly contradictory meanings. While

kekuatan (force) evokes strength and power, moral connotes principled and ethical behavior. By using the term kekuatan, students represent themselves as powerful political actors able to exert an influence on national politics and so advance their interests and the interests of those they represent. The use of the term moral to pre- modify kekuatan, however, emphasises the fact that students’ motivation is not political

dikembangkan menjadi ‘Sikap Ksatria’ di kalangan generasi muda Indonesia sebagai pembela dan penegak kebenaran dan keadilan bagi masyarakat dan bangsa]. See also chapter five.

but moral, stemming from their desire for ‘ideal’ government. By representing their motivation as a moral one, students define their political role in a way which does not constitute a threat to the regime. Moreover, since the New Order represented itself as having restored the ‘purity’ of the Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, in contrast to the ‘adulterations’ perpetrated by the previous government, students’ use of terms such as

murni enables them to frame their criticisms in a way which the New Order has acknowledged as legitimate.

The rakyat

One of the key elements in students’ conceptions of their roles and identities was the notion that they acted as the spokespersons for the aspirations of the rakyat (the common people) and that they had a responsibility to guide and educate them in matters of politics. In the New Order’s conception of the family state, it was the bapak or head of the family, Bapak Presiden Suharto, who was responsible for the welfare of the national family. Students’ definitions of their role in these terms thus reflected the state’s paternalistic approach to the rakyat and at the same time implied that the national family was not functioning in an ideal way, a situation which required students’ intervention.

In the student press, the concept of wider society or the common people was expressed using the terms rakyat (the common people) and masyarakat (society). These terms appeared frequently in articles on a wide range of topics concerning students’ roles and identities: from their role in kontrol sosial, in politics and democracy education and in articles dealing with the nature of the student movement. For example, in an article in the 16 June 1976 edition of Salemba on students’ role in social control, the term

masyarakat appeared 11 times. Similarly, an article on the student movement in the 1 September 1977 edition of Salemba included three mentions of the term rakyat and ten of masyarakat.

In its denotative or dictionary meaning, the word rakyat refers to ‘the people of a nation’ (penduduk suatu negara) and to ‘the masses’ (orang kebanyakan) or ‘the common people’ (orang biasa). The latter sense differentiates the rakyat from the aristocracy or the affluent upper classes as well as from the leaders of the nation (the

ruling class). In the discourse of the student press in the mid to late 1970s, the word

rakyat was usually used to refer to ‘the common people’. Yet through the meanings given to it by students, it developed connotations of ‘disempowered’, ‘low levels of education’ and a ‘lack of awareness’ as well as ‘politically immature’. The term

masyarakat was used in a similar way to highlight the problems faced by wider society, which were seen as requiring students’ interest and involvement.

This understanding of the rakyat was by no means new in Indonesia. Discussing the attitude of the nationalist intellectuals and party leaders of the 1930s, Frederick points out that the concept of the rakyat was a central element in the view of society held by this new elite. Among this elite, there was both a dedication to, and an admiration of, the ‘common people’, even if this was conceived of in a ‘naïve and often overly romanticised’ way:

The rakyat, although the subject of endless rhetoric by intellectuals, was … ill- defined and reduced to vague terms such as kromo, murba, and marhaen which, despite the ideological associations they acquired, meant essentially the same thing: an undifferentiated mass or ‘common man’, an abstract or even imaginary social construction around which a good deal of romantic fantasy grew up (Frederick 1989, 55; see also McVey 1967, 138-40).

The idea that the rakyat was an object of admiration and at the same time required the leadership of those more educated and politically aware than themselves was also a central theme in Sukarno’s political rhetoric during the Guided Democracy period. Sukarno’s designation of himself as the penyambung lidah rakyat (extension of the people’s tongue) and his claimed concern for the interests of the marhaen, the symbol of Indonesia’s rural masses, emphasised the importance of the rakyat while at the same time representing their interests as embodied in the person of Sukarno.33

In the New Order’s concept of the ‘family state’ the interests of the rakyat were similarly depicted as represented in the structures of the state itself: the DPR and MPR. These structures, as the military ideologue and at that time secretary-general of the Interim People’s Consultative Assembly (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Sementera, MPRS) Abdulkadir Besar suggested in 1969, were ‘set up to reflect the popular will’ (cited in Bourchier and Hadiz 2003, 41, see also ibid., xi; Bourchier 1996 171-2). In reality, however, the role of the rakyat was largely a symbolic one: they were passive

33

objects to be represented by appointed ‘delegates’ of regional and functional groups (ibid., 42). This role was clearly reflected in the concept of the ‘floating mass’, introduced after the 1971 general elections. In order to prevent the political parties from mobilising widespread support, party branches below the district (kabupaten) level were disbanded and mass organisations affiliated with the parties were reorganised into the new corporatist organisations (Ward 1973, 73; Bourchier and Hadiz 2003, 12). Indonesia’s urban and rural masses, it was asserted, were not to be distracted by politics but, rather, were to focus their energies on national development (Ward 1973, 73). At the same time, the New Order also promoted a strong sense of hierarchy in the idea of the bapak or father as the head of the national family. As a textbook for the primary school course in Pancasila Moral Education stated, the role of the bapak in this framework was to work ‘in the interests of the whole family’, putting their needs and interests above his own (cited in Bourchier 1996, 239-40; see also Shiraishi 1997). Like Sukarno, in his role as Bapak Presiden (Father President), Suharto was the principal spokesperson for the interests of the national family.

Concern for the rakyat and a claim to act on their behalf was also an integral part of the way earlier generations of youth and students had seen their role. As noted in chapter two, the youth of the colonial period saw themselves as having an important role to play as leaders of the rakyat. This role was based on the special understanding of the rakyat

which these students claimed to have. The pemuda of the revolution also saw their role in terms of leadership and defence of the rakyat and their aspirations, from whom they saw themselves as distinct. In 1965-1966 the student demonstrators claimed to represent the demands of the people through their formulation of the Tritura (Tri Tuntutan Rakyat, Three People’s Demands) (see chapter three). And in the late 1960s, students associated with the Bandung-based student newspaper Mahasiswa Indonesia

wrote of the need for a modernising elite to lead the ‘ignorant’ (masih bodoh) and ‘backward’ (terbelakang) masses and free them from poverty, injustice and oppression (Raillon 1985, 183-4).

This view of the rakyat was also central to the ways in which students who wrote in the student press of the mid to late 1970s defined their relationship to wider Indonesian society. A variety of terms were used to describe this relationship including penyalur aspirasi rakyat (channels of the peoples’ aspirations), pembawa suara hati nurani rakyat (spokespersons for the people’s sentiments) (Salemba 15 January 1977, 1 and 8),

pembela rakyat jelata (defenders of the common people), pejuang rakyat (warriors of the people), juru bicara perasaan rakyat (spokespersons for the sentiments of the people) and even ratu adil, the legendary ‘just king’ of Javanese mythology (Gelora Mahasiswa 21 June 1979). Students justified this role in terms of their more advanced education, the historical example set by their predecessors, the lack of representation of social sentiments in the current system, as well as their special awareness of social issues. An article by the 1974 student activist Hariman Siregar in the May 1980 edition of Salemba, for example, argues that the students of the early nationalist movement had:

… a high level of awareness that they were not merely the leaders of students but in fact leaders of the people of Indonesia whose education and access to information was very poor. Their position as leaders of the people was made easier because the people themselves accepted their leadership, as they too were aware of their weaknesses (Salemba 5 May 1980, 4-5).34

Similarly, under the New Order, Siregar maintains, the persisting low levels of education and lack of access to information (one of the key ‘weaknesses’ of the rakyat) continues to validate students’ role as spokespersons for the rakyat. Moreover, since both before and after independence no movement existed which ‘truly represented (mewakili) wider social sentiment’, the task has fallen to students ‘to comply with (menurut) the demands of the people’ and ‘struggle for their fate’ (memperjuangkan nasibnya) (Salemba 5 May 1980, 5). This role was represented as an ‘obligation’ (kewajiban) which was based on students’ awareness of disparities in wider society and their sensitivity to social issues (Salemba 16 June 1976, 5).35

A further dimension to students’ relationship to wider society was the notion that they acted as educators and guides for the rakyat. In an article which appeared in the 15 February 1977 edition of Salemba, former Universitas Indonesia student council chairperson Zainal A. S. argued that in the political arena the role of students was to provide ‘explanations’ (pengertian) and ‘guidance’ (bimbingan)as well as educationin

34

Kesadaran mereka yang tinggi bahwa mereka bukan sekedar memimpin mahasiswa saja tetapi justru untuk memimpin rakyat Indonesia yang sangat kurang pendidikan dan informasi yang didapatnya. Kedudukan mereka sebagai pemimpin rakyat ini juga dipermudah oleh karena rakyat sendiri menerima kepemimpinan tersebut sebab rakyat juga sadar akan kekurangan mereka (Salemba 5 May 1980, 4-5).

35

Students’ perceptions of themselves as an educated elite with a social and political responsibility to the masses remained a consistent feature of their discourse in the 1980s. Aspinall, for example, argues of students’ collaboration with wider social forces during the 1980s that ‘the poor were seen primarily as an object of sympathy, or as recipients of student assistance and pembinaan (guidance)’ although there were parts of the discourse of the protest movement which represented the rakyat as ‘an independent and potentially decisive force for social change’ (1993, 37-38). See chapter six for a discussion of the development of the latter view in the student press of the 1990s.

the meaning and importance of elections for the ordinary people (kalangan bawah or

rakyat jelata), and to attempt to ‘mature’ (mendewasakan) this group so that their votes were objective and impartial (tidak terpengaruh oleh aspirasi masing-masing) (Salemba

15 February 1977, 4).

Students’ role as spokespersons of the rakyat is reflected in the grammatical roles

mahasiswa play in the student publications and in the roles played by rakyat. Throughout the student publications the actors carrying out actions on behalf of the

rakyat are mahasiswa: students are penyalur (channels), pembawa (bearers), pembela

(defenders) and pejuang (warriors) of the rakyat and their interests. Studentsalso act as the grammatical actors in processes such as mendewasakan (to (cause to) mature) and

memperjuangkan (to struggle for). In contrast, the rakyat are almost invariably depersonalised in student discourse, becoming the post-modifier in simple abstract noun phrases, as in for example kehendak rakyat (the people’s desires), nasib rakyat (the people’s fate), aspirasi rakyat (the people’s aspirations) and kepentingan rakyat (the people’s interests).36 The focus is thus not on the rakyat themselves but rather on (what students perceive to be) their ‘desires’, ‘fate’ ‘aspirations’, and ‘interests’.

The terms rakyat and masyarakat, and the meanings students gave to them, thus differentiated educated and socially aware mahasiswa from the majority of Indonesians, whose interests students were called to represent. Students claimed, for example, that they were ‘different from the rest of society’ (berbeda dengan masyarakat lainnya) and represented a ‘special group within society’ (kelompok khusus dalam masyarakat) (Salemba 15 March 1977; Salemba 1 September 1977). This clear distinction between students and the rakyat was both a reflection of students’ paternalistic understanding of their relationship to the common people and of the parameters which the threat of state repression set for the ways in which students were able to represent their roles and identities. As Aspinall notes, small, elite-level movements tend to attract less repression than lower-class movements or movements with a mass support base (Aspinall 2000, 9; see also chapter one). Students’ emphasis on the clear separation between their movement and the rakyat, and in practical terms, their reluctance to

36

I found only three instances where the rakyat were not in the position of a post-modifier. In two of these instances the rakyat functioned as the object of a passive verb. In an article in the 16 June 1976 edition of Salemba, for example, a dynamic balance between elements of society was described as being ‘demanded by the rakyat’ (dituntut rakyat). An article which featured in the 20 February 1980 edition of