Custom Search

Sabtu, 15 November 2008

Student Movement and Political Suppression

Students' interest in social problems lead to their involvement in politics. Students, according to Curran and Renzetti (1990:598), “have a long history of activism in such political pressure groups”. Such a position, in Lipset's view, is gained because students “are more responsive to political trends, to changes in mood, to opportunities for action, than almost any other group in the population” (Lipset and Altbach 1969:497). This shows that the role of students in society is not only as social critic, but also as a political force which can stimulate social and political change within society.

In developing countries, the role of students in society is very important because they are elite groups who are among the first introduced to modernisation. This was even clearer in the post-colonial era, between 1950s and 1970s, when very few people had access to higher education. Within a society with a small number of educated middle class, students became a source of public opinion. Moreover, their concern with modernisation and development made them important agents of social, political and cultural changes. They began to diverge from the traditional prescriptions to which the older generation was very much attached, instigating, as Feuer (1969) puts it, a “conflict of generations”.

In Indonesia this conflict of generations was marked by various student demonstrations which criticised government policies and proposed radical changes and solutions to social, economical and political problems faced by Indonesia. In the 1960s students and other sections of society, including some army members (Railon 1985:7) struggled for the establishment of the Indonesian New Order. In the New Order era student movements continued to criticise government policies. In 1974 students demonstrations demanded the dissolution of the group of personal assistants of the president who had too much influence at the time, a reduction in prices and the crushing of the corruptors. This demonstration turned into violence and destruction when demonstrators' behaviour went out of control, and about 9 students were killed and 23 others were injured (Tomtowi Syafei 1987). This event was known as ‘Peristiwa Malari’ (The Fifteenth of January Event).

This event had a long and tragic impact on student activism. In 1977, the Ministry of Education banned student involvement in politics. It was followed by the dissolution of Student Government (Dewan Mahasiswa, Dema) in 1978, by order of the Pangkopkamtib (Panglima Komando Pemulihan Keamanan dan Ketertiban, the Chief of Operations Command for the Restoration of Security and Order), Admiral Sudomo. Finally, on April 19th 1978, the Ministry of Education decided on a new policy, ie. Normalisation of Campus (Normalisasi Kehidupan Kampus, NKK). A year later students protested against this policy in Bandung, Jakarta, Surabaya and Jogjakarta (CSIS 1980:15), but, the policy still applies in 1995.

For students, this was the death of university campuses. According to a student, the NKK policy resulted in disadvantages not only to the students but also to the government. Students became passive and were no longer interested in the social and political problems of their societies. They were alienated from their surrounding environment and frustrated. Their ideal intellectual and spiritual dimensions disappeared. They become bodies (tubuh) without soul (ruh). In MH Ainun Najib's view, students became bulls in the stall of NKK.

From 1983 Islamic student organisations such as HMI (Himpunan Mahasiswa Islam, Islamic Student Association), PMII (Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam Indonesia, Indonesian Islamic Student Movement), IMM (Ikatan Mahasiswa Muhammadiyah, Muhammadiyah Student Association) and PII (Pelajar Islam Indonesia, Islamic School-Student Association),[1] were forced to change their ideological base, ie. Islam, into Pancasila. In the 15th HMI Congress inMedan, HMI decided not to adopt Pancasila as its azas (foundation), even though there was strong external pressure from the government. However, in 1985 when the government began to apply the Basic Guidelines for Mass Organisations (Rancangan Undang-Undang Keormasan), all mass organisations, including here students' and religious organisations were required to accept Pancasila as their bases. Therefore, in the 16th congress, after a long and heated debate HMI accepted Pancasila. This attitude led to internal conflict, ie. the break-up of HMI into HMI itself and the ‘Assembly to save the organisation,’ (Majelis Penyelamat Organisasi, MPO). Muhammadiyah Student Association (IMM) and Indonesian Islamic Student Movement (PMII) automatically accepted Pancasila when their main body Muhammadiyah and NU, respectively, accepted it as the foundation of all organisations. Only one organisation, the PII, preferred to dissolve itself rather than accept Pancasila as its ideological foundation. Although it formally dissolved, it continued to hold trainings at an underground level.

This situation for Muslims and students in general was quite frustrating. To reduce their alienation they tried to find channels through which they could express their ideas. At this stage public and university mosques became a centre of student activities.

The late 1970s and early 1980s (after the banning of Dewan Mahasiswa), according to Denny J.A., (1990), marked a new stage in the student movement in Indonesia. Student movements changed their orientation, format, organisation and type. While the orientation of previous student movements was challenging the ‘power structure’ (struktur kekuasaan), in the 80s their orientationwas to form political and social opinion among the masses.

get from

http://epress.anu.edu.au/islamic/quest/mobile_devices/ch02s02.html

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar