Introduction
The following discussion was written based on
interviews conducted by Jurnal Bersatu (Journal of
Unity) editorial staff with a number of people’s
organisations. The spectrum and “political
groupings” along with the sectors and class of
organisation were several of the considerations in
the choice of the groups that were interviewed.
Nevertheless there were two organisations – the
People’s Movement Alliance for Agrarian Reform
(AGRA) and the United People’s Party (PPR) who on
the eve of the publication of this journal were
unable to be interviewed.
Peasant Organisations
1. Donny, National Peasants Union (STN).
There has been no significant reform in farmers’
standard of living since the fall of Suharto. The
exchange value has progressively declined because
the ‘output’ paid out by farmers is becoming
steadily higher, while the ‘input’ obtained from
agricultural enterprises is becoming progressively
smaller. This is in part caused by factors external
to agricultural enterprises, such as the policy to
increase the price of fuel that has had a huge
impact on the cost of the agricultural production
and the lack of government guarantees on the price
of rice and farm food products.
The principle issues facing farmers
There have been at least three principle themes in
the peasants’ struggle in the post Suharto period.
First, agrarian conflicts, particularly between
farmers and traditional communities and the
plantation, forestry and mining companies, whether
they are private or government owned. Secondly, the
market liberalisation of agricultural products,
which has been a massive blow to output by
Indonesia’s peasant class because Indonesian
agricultural productivity, which is still lagging
behind [other countries] is forced to compete with
highly advanced agricultural production. Third, the
problem of the agricultural production costs that
are increasingly expensive a result of inflation and
the fuel price increases, meanwhile there is no
guarantee on the price of agricultural produce. Land
reform in the sense of the return of land to the
people, particularly farmers, in order that it can
be used to improve their standard of living is still
relevant, because in the post-Suharto period, land
is still being monopolised by plantation, forestry
and mining companies.
The state of the peasant movement
The STN believes that the state of the peasant
movement post the fall of Suharto is relatively
encouraging. First, farmers’ willingness to organise
is growing, which is apparent form the emergence of
many peasant organisations, whether they be local or
those that already have a national network.
Secondly, the people, particularly farmers, are
increasingly prepared to retake land that was seized
during the Suharto era. Third, many peasant
organisations at the local and provincial level have
formed alliances at the national level. This
represents an advance, because a view already exists
that struggle at the national level is something
that is necessary. In addition to this, in relative
terms the peasant movement organisations are
dominated by groups with a progressive thinking who
accept radical methods of struggle, such as mass
actions and so forth.
Peasant movement unity
In general the peasant movement outside of STN has a
similar theme of struggle, which is the resolution
of land conflicts and agrarian reform, opposition to
trade liberalisation, particularly in the
agricultural field and endeavouring that the
government improve the quality of and guarantee the
price of basic commodities. Similarly, the struggle
at the local level can be taken to the national
level, the struggle over land issues being centred
on demanding that the government implement the Basic
Agrarian Law Number 5/1960. Meaning there is no
grounds not to unite and indeed efforts at
cooperation on farmers’ issues often take place and
the results have been quite good, at least the
essence of the campaigns reached the relevant party.
But so far, cooperation has indeed only been based
on momentum, and is not yet at the strategic or
long-term level. Perhaps it would be best if such an
alliance were built from below or at the grassroots,
because from the STN’s own experience, if it is
built from below, it is ensured to directly manifest
itself in practice and generally endures for quite a
long time. Building unity from above, through
establishing an agreement among national leaders,
usually encounters at dead lock at the grassroots,
because there are different realties between those
at the top and those at the bottom. For example when
there is agreement at the national level, at the
local level there is the problem of each
organisation making clams over which base of support
it controls. So, in the peasant movement, unity must
be built from below and at the top limited by
communication that is initially non-binding. Those
at the top can also call on organisations at the
grassroots not to oppose each other in principle,
because no principle disagreement exists between
peasant organisations at the national level.
Aims of the struggle
The aim of the STN’s struggle is to create a social
order that is just and prosperous as desired by the
founders of the Indonesian nation. Although some of
the basic rights of the people are guaranteed under
the 1945 Constitution, they are not implemented by
the country’s leaders, particularly in the post-New
Order regime period. This awakening must start from
efforts at developing rural communities in general
and the peasant class in particular, because: 1)
development requires the existence of food
sovereignty; 2) the majority of Indonesian people
still live in rural areas; and 3) there are examples
in many other countries that development and
national industry can be achieved if the country is
able to take off from a process of improving the
peasant class and rural communities.
Political parties
Struggle at the socio-economic level is obviously
not enough and requires struggle at the socio-
political level. The STN itself has had the
experience of being an initiator in the
establishment of POPOR (the Party of United Popular
Opposition) and most recently Papernas. But learning
from this experience, building a party can be so
consuming that the needs and the internal
organisation’s strength to struggle for the demands
of the STN’s peasant members can be forgotten. This
is a model that is not quite right, because building
a political party for the parliamentary movement
cannot abandon the building of an extra-
parliamentary socio-economic movement. Both have to
be undertaken and be mutually supportive.
The 2009 elections
The STN, as one of the initiators of Papernas, had
hoped that Papernas could become an alternative
party to contest the 2009 elections. But now,
because Papernas has been unable to or not
successful enough in supporting the mission that was
put forward by STN, the STN cannot see anything
positive in the existing contestants in the 2009
elections.