TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Max Lane’s thoughts on activists of the 90s including those who have closed ranks around Prabowo Subianto, and the absence of opposition in Indonesia.

Student activists of the 90s who banded together to overthrow President Suharto have chosen different paths after the 1998 Reformasi. Some ventured into mainstream politics, some became active in labor unions or non-governmental organizations, or some became journalists. Indonesianist, Maxwell Ronald Lane, or Max Lane as he is familiarly called, said it was quite normal if the movement stopped after the dictatorship was toppled and people went their ways.

Some of these activists’ career choices are particularly manifest in the 2024 presidential election in which Anies Baswedan-Muhaimin Iskandar, Prabowo Subianto-Gibran Rakabuming Raka, and Ganjar Pranowo-Mahfud Md. pairs will be jostling for the presidential and vice-presidential seats. One particular activist who came under the spotlight is a former chair of the Democratic People’s Party (PRD), Budiman Sudjatmiko, who threw his weight behind Prabowo, the man he considered responsible for the 1998 activists kidnapping.

Max Lane considers this move not surprising. “Those who join a party which they once considered an enemy are called crossovers,” he said during an online interview with Tempo on December 22.

During the nearly two-hour long interview, Lane explained the impetus behind the birth of the student movement in the 90s that culminated in Suharto’s resignation after more than three decades in power. He also talked about Indonesian politics which can be called liberal, the lack of alternative political power or opposition as well as the battle in the 2024 general elections. The interview has been edited for the sake of clarity and flow.

What do you think of activists supporting Prabowo Subianto in the 2024 presidential election?

It’s not surprising. Things like that happen. Those who join a party that they once considered an enemy are called crossovers. They may remain in labor unions or NGOs (non-governmental organizations). Why do they crossover? I don’t know what’s in their heart. If I look at Prabowo’s track record, the emphasis is that he was involved in kidnappings. Some also suspect that he was also involved in the May 1998 riots. If I am an Indonesian citizen, these two things are enough for me to not vote (for him). I’m not an Indonesian, so I can’t vote and I don’t recommend (voting). There is a third factor that hasn’t been less emphasized. For what purpose did he carry out the kidnappings? To save Suharto from being overthrown by the people’s movement. Can someone who resorted to violence to save a dictatorship be trusted to nurture democracy?

Wasn’t it a betrayal of the activist’s idealism?

I followed, for instance, Petrus Haryanto’s campaign. He was a PRD member and launched a ‘Don’t vote for kidnappers’ campaign. He criticized Budiman Sudjatmiko, his old friend. I truly empathize with what Petrus has been doing. But at the same time, I don’t agree that the media and the general idea among intellectuals are focusing only on people like Budiman. Why not focus instead on raising inspiration for the youth of today that there are 55, 60 and 66-year-old activists still active in labor unions until now?

<!--more-->

Because Budiman was once an icon of the movement?

Budiman’s services (to the country) before 1998 were numerous. He was sent to prison by Suharto. He didn’t actually participate in the 1998 demonstrations because he was in prison. But clearly, he crossed over. But don’t forget that he joined the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P). And who rehabilitated Prabowo for the first time? The PDI-P. Prabowo was a vice-presidential candidate of Megawati Soekarnoputri. Take a look at the photos of when Joko Widodo was a Jakarta gubernatorial candidate. Who is the person in a checkered shirt lifting Jokowi’s hand? Prabowo. For me, (one of the pairs in this presidential election) is a combination of Prabowo and Jokowi. Maybe officially it’s Prabowo-Gibran. For me, this is a combination of impunity on one side and dynasty on the other. That’s not really a nice combination, is it?

What were the main drivers of activism in the 90s?

First, widespread public disquiet, anger, and dissatisfaction with the developing situation. Second, the formation of a culture of resistance was quite good in the 70s and 80s. There were W.S. Rendra, Goenawan Mohamad, and others who led a (cultural) movement. There were also student movements in Jakarta, Yogyakarta, and Surabaya in the 70s. In the period 1980 to 1981, writings by former political detainee, Pramoedya Ananta Toer, began to circulate widely among the public. It opened the eyes of many youths to the fact that Indonesia’s history was different from what was being taught.

What happened after Suharto’s fall?

The movement subsided. That’s normal. Those who led the movement were faced with a question: what do we do now? Well, those who prioritized social justice for the grassroots, they understood that although the dictatorship was over, social justice issues were not over yet. Many questions emerged and people who were previously united began to go in different directions. Some ventured into mainstream politics, some became active in labor unions or non-governmental organizations, and some became journalists. How to bring change to a country like Indonesia which is controlled by a capitalist elite formed under an unjust structure? No one has the answer even until today. Because the problems are indeed complex. After years of different strategies, nothing has changed. Some gave up. Some, not all, are frustrated. That reflects a very unique situation in Indonesia.

Why didn’t the 1998 Reformasi bring about significant changes?

It is a legacy of 1965, coupled with the political culture built by Suharto for 32 years where the practice of talking, discussing, debating, pondering, and imagining a different future that was normal in every global society was lost. If there is criticism, it is fringe. I taught at the Gadjah Mada University and I asked my students how they imagined Indonesia in 30 to 40 years. They looked blank. Okay, to be frank, it’s the same in Australia, but Australia’s history is different.

Indonesia perhaps is the only nation in the world that has nine parties in the parliament, which is around 90 percent, where a total consensus is reached when voting. Indonesia does not have opposition. Even Russia has. Opposition doesn’t exist in Indonesia not because it is forbidden or people who oppose are imprisoned. Indonesian society has not given birth to the opposition. The intelligentsia who are highly critical don’t go into politics to create a new force so the people can have options.

Several activists have entered politics but why did they fail to drive change?

For the future, there is a dire need for idealism that sprang up in the 90s among young people. I think it is youths below 20 that can be hoped to become the strength of the people of different social strata.

Read the Full Interview in Tempo English Magazine