POLITICS OF HADIZ & ROBINSON

QUESTION

Essay,700 words

Relate how you see the points of Difference (if any) in approach to describing the end of Suharto regime in Lane, Max, Unfinished Nation, see chapters, “Power” and “Aksi after Suharto” and Chapter 7 “Political Unravelling in VediHadiz and Richard Robison, Reorganising power in Indonesia, the politics of Oligarchy  in an age of market.

SOLUTION

Political struggle in the later part of nineties played a very important role in the shaping up of Indonesia as a nation today. But looking at the history, the unfolding of the state of events has forced historians to take different views and political interpretations on the key factors which ultimately led to the downfall of Soeharto.

Hadiz & Robison and Max although agree on the outcomes of the fall of Soeharto and subsequent political coercion by the elite in keeping out the students or radical factions systematically from the transition government; but they differ on the key aspects and factors responsible for the fall of Soeharto regime.

While Hadiz & Robison have attributed the downfall of Soeharto mainly because of the economic factors coupled with weak binding within the Golkar party; giving students and Aksi (political activity) a nominal credit in overthrowing Soeharto. There was no strong economic boom, weak Rupiah and resignation by key economic ministers left Soeharto alone to fend for himself. The oligarchy felt threatened and believed that in order to survive, Suharto needs to step down. But here lies the key difference with Lane’s views. Lane believes that it is the popular support from the masses and Aksi were the key factors which helped the ruling elite (Wahid, Rais and Soekarnoputri) formulate the mass opinion to ultimately force Soeharto out of his office whereas rest of the economic factors played a minor role.

Hadiz & Robison maintains throughout that there was no strong opposition from the students and middleclass and were mainly fractured in nature. There was no common binding factor amongst all the groups which could come together and form a cohesive movement. There was no specific leadership which the students and masses could put forward. Though they had radical views and had put across the charter to scrap down the draconian laws and were not ready to accept the transition government; but in reality wielded less power to force the government accept the same. New Order leaders like Walid and Rais provided tacit support to the students, but always requested them to restrain and stay put. Hadiz & Robison also reiterates the fact that students had popular support not only from the middle class and factory workers because of the poor economic situation and weak Rupiah, but some part of the elite, especially the military were supporting them through selective violence, channelizing their violence against minorities (Chinese) as ploy to show the world of the consequences if Soeharto is removed from power. Overall the students movement lost steam in the end and were ultimately left out of the overall political change due to the fear of the elite (New order mainly) against a rightist movement radical in nature. They preferred a slow transition rather than an overnight transformation through revolution.

Lane on the other hand has expressed that it was the aksi and mass mobilization which played the critical role in the downfall of Soeharto. The popular uprising was carefully orchestrated by the opposition (PRD and other radical wings) to raise voice against the regime which gathered momentum. These were radical in nature ultimately demanding formation of “People’s Councils” which essentially meant to transfer the power from the elite to the grass-root levels.

But the initiative was taken by those politicians at arm’s length from the centre of power, not immersed in the machinations of suppressing the mobilisations, and who had some analytical capacity” – mainly Megawati, Abdurrahman Wahid and Amien Rais. Here both Lane and Hadiz & Robison agree that these elite saw their potential downfall in the new proposals put forth and suggested the masses to tone down and be patient. The successor to Soeharto, Habibie, though was seen as a Suharto’s supporter in disguise being handpicked by Soeharto himself, did a credible job in putting the transition government in place against all odds and managed to survive longer than expected.

Post Soeharto, Student class did not feel their ideologies were on the same plane with that of the working class and were essentially fractured. Hadiz and Robison & Lane, both agree that the class divisions have deepened in the post Suharto regime due to imposition of harsh neo liberal policies creating more chaos within the general population. It is the incompatibility of the ideologies of the student class with the general working population and this class division ultimately allowed the old oligarchy in parts to rule the country again without any association of the students in the formation of the new democracy.

To conclude, Lane and Hadiz & Robison differ on the key factors which initiated the chain of events. Though aksi and economic issues are factored in, but both differ on the level of impact these factors played. But both agree on the outcome of the revolution and on key factors of socio-economic issues along with a headless and fractured student leadership and class division which did not play a crucial role in the new democracy which ideally should have been the case.

References:

Max, L., 2005. Unfinished Revolution: Indonesia Before and After Suharto. New York: Verso, 2008.

Richard, R., and Hadiz, V., 2004. Reorganising Power in Indonesia: The Politics of Oligarchy in an Age of Markets (Routledge/City University of Hong Kong Southeast Asia Series). Edition. Routledge.

L014