The riots that engulfed Central Jakarta last Saturday were the worst since those of January 1974. According to eyewitnesses, military men and hired thugs disguised as PDI members opposed to Megawati at dawn stormed the party headquarters still occupied by hundreds of her supporters. The violent eviction ended their last stand after the government unseated Megawati six weeks ago at an extra-ordinary congress in North Sumatra. Similar evictions took place in Yogyakarta and Surabaya, with less violence. Later that day, ten thousand people, many from nearby urban slums, surged onto the streets. They torched many buildings, including the Agriculture Department, banks, auto showrooms, as well as dozens of cars and busses. In 1974 army agents provocateur were behind some of the rioting. This time the rioters shouted 'Abri are killers'. Fortunately, soldiers did not respond with bullets, as they have done in the past. Even so, unofficial sources sources say six may have died. Perhaps 100 were injured, some seriously. Over 200 were arrested, according to the military. The authorities appear to have restored order to the capital. Now the war of interpretations has started in the Indonesian press. Bald devils Some, and not only from the military, point to agitators 'outside the system' as the real source of trouble. Effectively, they argue the riots demonstrate once more that Indonesia is not yet ready for free politics. On this view, all the restrictions on a political process - beginning with the armed forces' dominant role in it - remain essential to stability. This view takes its cue from President Suharto himself. The day before the military move on the PDI headquarters he warned that Megawati's supporters had been infiltrated by what he picturesquely called 'bald devils'. He singled out MARI by name. This coalition of activist groups was posturing with slogans of democracy and human rights, the President said, but were in fact simply opposed to the government. He said the elections should not be postponed because of the PDI problem. What is MARI? Its mainstay is the year-old People's Democratic Party, PRD, consisting mainly of students and labourers. These young people are far from impressed with conventional party politics. But they came out strongly behind Megawati when she was in trouble. Their methods are militant - street marches and strikes - and their programme ranges from a Free East Timor to higher factory wages. Following the prominent role it played in a large labour demonstration in Surabaya three weeks ago, the military said the PRD was 'communist'. Perhaps the military have convinced the President that PRD and MARI are a real threat. If they have, they (both) are surely yielding to panic. While no outsider knows precisely how big the PRD is, it cannot even approach the size of the communist party in 1965. By allowing it such a prominent place in the imagined political landscape, the President drastically shrinks the arena of permissible discourse. Another possibility is that the President really knows MARI is of little significance, but needs it to stigmatise an entire social movement by labelling it communist by association. This is the familiar game of 'he who is not with us is against us'. The movement for greater democracy is much wider than either PRD or Megawati. In this thought world, there is no opposition, only conformity among a small ruling elite, and beyond that the abyss of chaos where the unwashed masses groan. Last Saturday's riots are proof to it that Indonesia is indeed not ready for change. Whether real or imagined, just too many 'bald devils' lurk out there. Responsive However, other observers are effectively arguing that the riots prove nothing of the sort. On the contrary, they demonstrate the natural consequence of constant government interference in the political process. In Monday's edition of Republika, columnist Denny J. A. said the riots ought to force another look at Indonesia's single hegemonic party system, because it cannot cope with conflict. Academic Fachry Ali in the same paper blamed the explosion on the country's elitist and hierarchical political system, isolated from the mass of the population. Indeed, just as the PDI looked like becoming a real political party responsive to popular wishes, the military stepped in to bring it back under official control. Not the political process itself led to the outburst of anger on the streets, but the government's attempt to stop it. There are many other instances in recent Indonesian history where pushing the panic button has merely heightened tension rather than resolving it. Jailing many political leaders for subversion over the years was one, interfering in religious organisations like the Batak Protestant Church or Nahdatul Ulama another, without mentioning massacres. There are also positive examples, where a little trust has yielded fruit - the National Human Rights Commission comes to mind. Indonesia already has the mechanisms to permit a free political process. It has a parliament, a press, political parties, a judicial system. It has a large body of talent to run all these institutions to best effect. But too often these things have been more appearance than reality. As Indonesia approaches its moment of regime transition, the first since 1965, more faith in Brother and Sister Citizen will stand all Indonesians in good stead. The alternative, as these riots intimate, is too awful to contemplate.
Gerry van Klinken, editor, Inside Indonesia magazine.
| Return to digest index |
