Critiquing acts of protest or resistance is commonplace in the world of social movements. However, in the context of social movements in Indonesia, not much critique or evaluation of recent movements has been voiced.
There is scant analysis of why popular uprisings during the Post-Suharto Reformasi period have tended to be short-lived and easily dissipated. It is important to analyse what material conditions cause this to happen. The point is to find out what is needed to sustain resistance actions so they do not stop at the protest stage.
To answer this, we need first to understand the current situation of social movements in Indonesia.
Depoliticisation
Undeniably, the existence and sustainability of social movements today are still influenced by the depoliticisation that envelops Indonesian society. The legacy of depoliticisation from Soeharto’s authoritarian regime through the politics of the floating masses, which placed the masses as apolitical objects, persists today.
The majority of people avoid politics, which is considered remote from everyday life, and they can even be said to be “allergic” or “horrified” by politics. In fact, politics is about everyday life: the work we do from one morning to the next, how we can get a decent place to live, and who we choose to be our friends. However, the true face of politics is still far from being understood by the broad masses.
Not surprisingly, the face of politics displayed by democracy since the 1998 is limited to electoral politics with political agendas that alienate people. What happens in this “five-year politics” of the electoral cycle – the only face of politics known to the wider community – is a power struggle between factions of the bourgeoisie political elite.
Political contracts – written agreements between candidates and voters – in every election are indeed common. However, the lack of political constituency makes these political contracts nothing but sweet promises that cannot be held accountable.
Dependency on Students
Another manifestation of this depoliticisation can be seen in the strong sentiment of depending on students as drivers of protests. Phrases circulating in the community, such as “Where are the students? Why do they stay quiet?” or “If the students have not come down, the action will be sluggish,” almost always appear in every moment of resistance or mass action.
Again, this is inseparable from the depoliticisation during the Soeharto authoritarian era, which directed social movements by giving the stage to only students as agents of change. Meanwhile, the labour movement and other social movements were muzzled; even if they were given space, during the New Order’s floating mass politics, it was only in the form of state corporatism, for example, if unionising could only be through the All Indonesian Workers Union led by the army.
As a result, the wider community tends to recognise only students as a moral force that can oversee or act as a watchdog for the government. Of course, it is not only students who can be “agents of change.”
The Missing Class Analysis
The omission of class analysis has also affected Indonesian social movements.
For example, it is often assumed that all labour unions and workers are the same. Many labour unions were formed by employers and capital owners rather than workers, so the orientation of the labour union’s struggle is no longer to fight for the interests of workers but to become a mouthpiece for the interests of employers and capital owners.
Similarly, the term “people,” which is often interpreted as a homogeneous entity, is often hijacked by political elites in their agendas, which often contradict the interests of ordinary people—namely, the working people—themselves.
Class analysis is important and necessary in resistance movements and social movements so that we can see the source of the problem in every existing social conflict and fight with the right target.
The depoliticisation ingrained in social movements in Indonesia also makes it difficult for the political agenda to move away from the fragmentation of existing sectoral issues. Activists who are members of movement groups fighting for labour issues, for example, have not been able to move on to talk about education or environmental destruction. The same goes for many other sectoral issues.
This condition imposes some limitations. The alliances and movement fronts formed tend not to last long. The moment is gone, and the alliance or front disappears. The moment comes when a new alliance or front is formed again. Apart from the lack of collective care, existing alliances or movement fronts also tend to be formed on the basis of a common political agenda that cannot transcend the existing fragmentation.
In addition to the ingrained depoliticisation, the absence of a sustainable resistance structure also made popular resistance actions during the Reformasi era tend to be short-term, quickly “disappear”, but later appear again when political momentum returns.
Of course, this trend will not initially be perceived as odd by those new to protest or resistance movements. However, the more people follow mass actions and resistance movements, the more they question why this keeps happening. At least that’s how I feel as one of the “insiders” of the student and labour organising scene in Indonesia, at least since 2010.
The Necessity for Teach-ins
The absence of a sustainable resistance structure can be seen from the absence of teach-in activities during protests and afterwards. Teach-in activities are commonly carried out at moments of protest, especially outside Indonesia. Apart from being an educational tool during the protest, the interaction during the teach-in process can also strengthen solidarity among action participants and committees.
A series of teach-in activities can be organised spontaneously or through a structured program. For example, the University and College Union (UCU) unionised lecturers’ strike in the UK used both methods in each of its strike actions. It is indisputable that teach-in activities can pave the way for the growth of long-term political commitment from the masses.
Of course, teach-ins need to be accompanied by further involvement in resistance organisations, such as unions. Without that, it is challenging to maintain commitment and channel it through tangible dedication. However, joining and getting involved with organisations is not easy, let alone doing it with full commitment. It takes a process for an organisation to establish a tradition that allows members to grow within it.
Confronting Patriarchy within Movements
We need to admit that the current condition of social movement organisations is mostly male-dominated with a patriarchal ideology. This results in a lot of energy, especially from women, being devoted to “internal struggles” rather than the political activity of organising itself. It is not uncommon for women activists to experience “demoralisation”.
On this occasion, I also want to respond to the misogynistic view that “demoralisation is due to lack of ideology!” The demoralisation that I – and probably many other women activists – often experience is indeed ideological. I – and we – are fed up with the patriarchal ideology that you misogynists espouse.
The lack of compassionate practice due to patriarchy’s dominance in social movements also causes the structure of resistance to crumble. .
Take Collective Care Seriously
Again, I want to say that fighting and resisting requires not only commitment but also human resources to run the organisation with high dedication. If the human resources are depleted, what will happen?
The sanity and security of the members of a movement organisation need to be ensured and cared for so that we can continue to grow in the organisation, and the the movement organisation can continue to grow, too. When the work of care within an organisation is alive and shared equally, then the progress of the organisation is a certainty.
In addition, in my experience, friendship – and therefore a sense of security and trust – is one of the essential keys to organising that is often overlooked and underestimated. In fact, if we learn from the stories of organising by the prophets in the past, we can see that before the prophets taught ideologically, they first touched the hearts of their followers.
Theory and Practice
The disconnect between the theory and practice of mass organising is another crucial factor in the weakness of social movements’ resistance structures.
Those who are more concerned with producing radical ideas for the advancement of the movement are often considered “elitist,” “not on the ground,” or “just talking” by those who tend to have more contact with direct organising activities at the mass bases. The result is an unnecessary division: “base activists” and ‘intellectual activists,’ who are considered two contradictory camps.
But instead of seeing these two “types of activists” as contradictions amid our various limitations in carrying out political organising activities, can’t we just see the “division” as a division of labour?
Ideally, theory and practice should be produced by the same people. But again, we need to recognise that not many of us can do both with consistent dedication.
Furthermore, the emergence of the cancel culture phenomenon is also a double-edged knife. On the one hand, this phenomenon is positive for making people responsible for their actions. But, on the other hand, this phenomenon can also make a movement organisation, which is filled with members who certainly have a variety of personalities, threatened with being canceled because of the behavior of one of the members in it. I think we need to examine this phenomenon more deeply and seriously.
Finally, the lack of internal archiving and documentation within the various social movement organisations means that many small victories are easily forgotten and evaporated. To borrow Evi Mariani’s words in her writing, “Victory is composed of small bricks.”
Overcome Our Allergy to Power Politics
Another problem, due to the legacy of depoliticisation, is that social movements tend to ignore the importance of “power politics”. Until now, there is still a strong tendency for many in social movements to be allergic to power politics.
In fact, power politics is necessary to fight for noble goals on a massive scale and structurally. What needs to be considered critically in power politics is the orientation of power and the methods used to obtain it.
The distance between social movements in Indonesia and the political contestation of power provides several limitations. Apart from being unable to move from demands for the fulfilment of rights by waiting and hoping for the kindness of the authorities, this also affects the sustainability and improvement of the struggle agenda in the social movement itself.
However, it is not easy to simply trust and rely on various alternative political parties within the political arena of power. It is also not easy to ensure that the current and future alternative political parties are truly an alternative to the political dominance of the bourgeoisie.
However, forming strong constituency ties with them may be one way to ensure that these alternative political organisations do not become part of the politics of power that harm and destroy the lives of working people and nature, as we continue to witness today. Beyond that, these alternative political organisations are tasked with proving their “alternative” substance amidst the current political dominance of the bourgeoisie.
This article, originally publish in Indonesian in Project Multatuli, has been translated, lightly edited and republished with permission.
