NGOs had a lot of contact with one another but little with universities. Actually many professors were involved with NGOs, but few were prepared to have their names publicised. Arief Budiman is exceptional. But I think there should be contact, because NGOs and universities have a similar work to do. Both do research, even if it is 'action research'. NGOs were often started by university graduates. They sprang up because of the government's interest, and international interest in the problems of development.
I thought it was important there should be an intermediary, with all the risks that that entails. That's why I'm here. It's very good for me because I don't know a lot about NGOs. When my thesis was published people asked me to write. I wrote articles with (Australian academics) Ian Chalmers and Philip Eldridge on the voice of dissent, and NGO people said: 'Ah, this is a friend'.
I helped set up a forum for NGOs in Yogyakarta. At that time there were 37, now there are over 70. So my involvement became wider and wider, even though it was never clear what my function actually was.
Globalisation
I usually try to say that this world is changing, and let's see if we can understand what is happening. They want to conceptualize social change, usually through the term globalisation. So my job was not much different from my teaching task at university.
The role of NGOs in all this is positive. I always explain to them that what is happening today is globalisation from above. It is capital that is becoming global. And people think of this globalisation from above in terms of capital, international banks, and governments.
From below
However, no less effective, even if it is not nearly considered often enough and does not obtain sufficient legitimation, is a globalisation from below. That is where the NGOs are, and individual artists, journalists, labourers, students. And I say to them: we are a part of that. This is globalisation from below.
My task is to give them a 'justification' for that, a kind of ideology. I say to them, let us look in the Indonesian ideology for ways of creating a legitimation for ourselves. Why do we want to see people getting together with other people?
Up till now governments have been getting together with governments, or governments with big multinational corporations or international banks. These are the big players. What we do here at INFID goes on, but it does not have much legitimation. Always the government says that in this world of political realism, if you want to contact your friends in another country, you must go through us.
Humanity
And I say, alright, let us look at Pancasila, that is what the government regards as the truth. Let us look at the order of the five principles. First comes God. Second humanity. Then only in the third place comes the Indonesian nation. Then democracy, then social justice. I think that is a very beautiful order. It means you are not permitted to be too nationalistic. Because above Indonesia is humanity.
I want to show the government that we have a legitimate right to contact our colleagues overseas. The principle of humanity sees Indonesian humanity as just a portion of global humanity. If I am sick, I have the right to ask for help over there. If someone is sick over there, I am obliged to help. This principle was originally called internationalism by Sukarno.
It is important, because NGO activists from Indonesia who talk
overseas are always accused of being anational, of not being
sufficiently nationalistic. My argument is that so long as rich
Indonesians prefer to make a soccer club rather than a NGO for
social welfare, don't expect that such a NGO can be funded by
Indonesians. So long as religious people only want to make places
of worship rather than a NGO to improve people's lives, NGOs have
the right to get help from their friends overseas. After all, the
Indonesian government also gets help from its friends.
| Return to Table of contents edition No.47 |
