|
Indonesia Nongovernment Organizations (NGOs)
The central concerns of establishment politics under
the New
Order in the early 1990s were stability and development. A
broad
array of other issues, reflecting both the changes brought
about
in the society by development and the penetration of the
political culture by issues of global concern, set the
agenda of
a growing number of Indonesian private voluntary
associations.
These associations articulated interests ranging from
human
rights and the rule of law to issues of corruption and
environmental degradation. The proliferation of
nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) in the late 1970s and 1980s was an
indicator
of both the increased diversity of society and the growth
of a
modern middle class. It was precisely these
middle-class-inspired
groups that represented most vocally the grievances of
Indonesia's "floating masses." NGOs were independent of
government and political parties. Within the framework of
Pancasila democracy, the NGOs had to be nonpolitical, but
their
activities had political impact. To avoid the issue of
confusing
nongovernment with antigovernment organizations and
repoliticization of the depoliticized masses, the term NGO
was
replaced by other rubrics, such as community Self-Reliance
Groups
(LSM).
The government's attitude toward the NGOs in the early
1990s
was ambivalent. The government welcomed the work of NGOs
involved
in community self-help projects, rice-roots mobilization
for
socially or economically useful purposes, and as
alternative
structures for small development programs. However, the
independence of NGOs from the government had the potential
for
opposition, especially where the NGOs were aggressively
intervening in areas of agrarian rights or fundamental
human
rights. For example, there was a marked increase in the
number of
conflicts between settled communities and state
developmental or
commercial ventures. Many of these conflicts involved land
use
that would alter established proprietary or utilization
rights
without reference to the community's wishes and without
adequate
compensation. In circumstances where government agencies
acted to
support land seizures opposed by local communities, rights
questions were taken up by activist groups, students, the
press,
and networks of interested NGOs. That well-publicized
actions at
the local level could be translated into national issues
was
demonstrated in 1989, when protests over the forced
relocation of
villagers for a
World Bank (see Glossary) -assisted dam
project
at Kedung Ombo, Jawa Tengah Province, forced the
government to
modify its plans. The Kedung Ombo case and other agrarian
and
ecologically related protests also rekindled student
activism,
confined since the 1970s to nonpolitical behavior.
University
students found both a cause and a vehicle for renewed
social
involvement in the defense of the "little people."
Not only were the Indonesian NGOs/LSMs networked
internally,
they were networked through the International
Nongovernmental
Group on Indonesia (INGI) with corresponding groups abroad
and
were, to the discomfiture of the government, able to bring
pressure on foreign-aid donors. The Kedung Ombo affair
united the
LSMs with human rights and legal groups such as the
Indonesia
Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), perhaps the best known of
the NGOs
and a constant thorn in the state's legal flesh through
its
interventions in defense of the rule of law. The
government's
tolerance for the activities of NGOs became increasingly
limited
as the NGOs' activities moved into areas of sensitive
state
concerns and reached out to influence external aid givers.
After
the passage of the Mass Organizations Law in 1985, NGOs
were
required to file reports to allow the government to
monitor their
activities. According to Coordinating Minister of
Political
Affairs and Security Admiral (retired) Sudomo, there were
three
justifications for disbanding an organization: disturbing
national stability, receiving unreported foreign funds, or
being
directed by a foreigner. The first criterion was very
subjective.
Criticism of government policy by a domestic NGO could
lead to
the charge of subversion. At least three human rights NGOs
were
banned as a result of their unauthorized activities in
supplying
information to the international community in the wake of
the
November 1991 Dili incident.
The challenge for the NGOs in the early 1990s was not
only
their taking up real issues in the political economy, but
having
to do so when more traditional organizations, such as the
established bureaucratic and party institutions, seemed
unable or
unwilling to perform this function. Keterbukaan was
a
promise of a more liberal climate for dialogue.
Keterbukaan was yet to be accompanied by structural
change, however. In 1990 the Institute for the Defense of
Human
Rights (LPHAM, which itself was banned after the Dili
affair)
attempted to set up a free trade union that was
immediately
declared illegal. Working outside the system became almost
part
of the system. This seeming paradox may have been partly
explained by the fact that in this aspect of Indonesian
politics,
as in so many others, overt change, adaptation, and
accommodation
awaited the settlement of the succession issue.
Data as of November 1992
|
