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.

Environmental organisations

Andreat, General Secretary Green Indonesia Union
(SHI)

Because during the period of Suharto’s fall, foreign
capital won its fight with those forces within the
country that wanted reform, what then occurred was
the liberalisation and privatisation of all sectors.
This worsened the situation for the people, so some
people lost their trust in the government and the
people’s resistance increased. On the one hand, this
situation ‘ripened’ the people’s movement. But on
the other hand, those who had envisioned reform,
while reform never came, were then perhaps
frustrated, and they then began to think that
Suharto’s New Order period was better. If there is
no change in the leadership of the movement, it is
quite possible that the people will start dreaming
of a ‘just king’ (leader, saviour of the people) and
this has the potential to again bring about an
authoritarian leadership.

The current state of the people’s movement

The people’s movement is still not very big and the
people’s political consciousness is yet to reach the
level of a critical consciousness. This can be seen,
for example, from the persistence of money polities.
Despite this, generally and among middle-class
layers, there has been an increase in awareness
about the issue of imperialism or neoliberalism. So
there are two principle problems in the people’s
movement. First there is fragmentation and second,
there is still a disparity between different
elements within the people’s movement.

Aims of the struggle

For Andreas, there are at least two political aims.
First, direct democracy, which is organised starting
from the community level, for example decisions
about a particular mining investment must be made by
local people who live in and around the mining site.
Second, the economy must be determined by the
public. Here, socialism, as a model of collective
management is one of the models. So in the context
of the struggle against neoliberalism, economic
collectives need to be built that are autonomous,
and support each other at the regency level so goods
from outside do not expand into the regions.

People’s movement unity

The need for unity is actually well understood, but
there is the problem of fragmentation, which is
cased by at least four factors. First, because more
and more people are working on specific issues.
Second, a lack of humility between people in the
movement. Third, a crisis of leadership, because
barriers are created between different elements, so
there is no one who can really be trusted by all
elements. The other option to address the leadership
problems is a collective leadership model but this
is also difficult to build. Fourth, there are
different readings of the current situation in
Indonesia. In addition to this, there is there also
problems such as occurred in the People’s Movement
Conference of Unity (KPGR), where when there was
agreement at the national level, it was uncertain
the same thing was taking place in the regions.

Bearing this fragmentation in mind, movement unity
may not be able to aim for a target that is too
high, but rather be started from a limited
expansion. For example, left and green groups, each
build and consolidate their forces first, and later
at some point converge. Don’t agree to unite from
the start, because the green movement still has
people who will pull out if they are pressured to
unite.

The question of political parties

When the SHI was established it had already been
decided to build a party in 2011, but this is
currently going through a process of answering what
form of party will be built. Some say a green party,
because they feel environmental issues are the
urgent question, bearing in mind that democracy and
prosperity are vulnerable without ensuring the
carrying capacity of the environment.

The other debate is over the issue of the
relationship between the SHI and the party that will
be formed in the future. There are two view here,
that is: 1) a view that states that it will be the
SHI itself that will become a party and; 2) a view
that states that the SHI as a mass organisation must
continue to exist while building a party. Andreas
himself believes that the SHI as a mass organisation
should continue to exist and the masses will be
active within the SHI, while its party will become a
cadre party with a limited membership.

2OO9 elections

With regard to the 2009 elections, the SHI’s big
agenda is the delegitimisation of the system. But
whatever stand it takes in the elections, in order
to bring about reform, the mass movements must be
strengthened. Actually there is a potential that can
be built from choosing to golput (white movement,
abstaining from voting), but there are not enough
people in the movement to organise these golput
voters. Golput itself, although it represents a form
of political consciousness, is not accompanied by
more active resistance.