|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Asia
: The fall
of Suharto
Which social classes support the struggle for democracy in
Indonesia?
The lessons of history
By the Editorial Board
20 May 1998
Also in German and Indonesian
As the political crisis in Indonesia intensifies and the Suharto
regime maneuvers to hold onto power, it is crucial that the mass
movement of students and workers not fall prey to the illusion
that cosmetic changes in the power structure will signify genuine
democratic and social renewal.
Suharto's bloody dictatorship is not an aberration, nor is
it simply an expression of the despotic tendencies of an individual
ruler. Suharto's tenacious grip on power is indicative of the
critical position he occupies in the entire structure of bourgeois
rule in Indonesia. In the malignant figure of the military strongman
is embodied the acutely antagonistic relationship of the national
bourgeoisie to the oppressed masses of workers and peasants.
The very fact that Suharto has ruled with an iron fist for
more than three decades, without the emergence of a credible opposition
from within the propertied classes, is testimony to the historical
bankruptcy of the entire bourgeoisie of the country. The organic
cowardice of the present-day bourgeois opposition, which claims
to represent the struggle for democracy, was underscored by the
last minute declaration by one of its chief spokesmen, Amien Rais,
calling off the mass protest scheduled for Wednesday, May 20 in
Jakarta and other major cities. Rais' retreat highlights the common
fear shared by Suharto's minions and his semi-official opponents,
such as Rais and Megawati Sukarnoputri, that the student movement
might spark an uprising of the workers and impoverished masses
that would threaten the entire structure of class privilege and
exploitation.
The half-hearted and treacherous position of this bourgeois
opposition opens up the student movement to great dangers, including
a renewal of savage military repression, the basic modus operandi
of the regime since its inception.
At the same time, elements such as Rais, backed by sections
of the media and the political establishment in the West, promote
the conception that all of the political and social evils that
plague Indonesia are incorporated in the person of Suharto, and
that his eventual removal will signify a triumph of democratic
reform.
Such a naive and superficial approach serves very definite
political ends. To the extent that the attention of the masses
becomes fixated on the personal fate of Suharto, the essential
class issues that underlie the struggle against the regime become
obscured, facilitating the efforts of the international banks,
imperialist governments and local ruling circles to fashion, if
necessary, a new regime, better equipped to resolve the crisis
at the expense of the workers, peasants and dissident youth.
The very fact that the collective memory of the working masses
concerning the bitter lessons of history, above all the 1965 coup,
seems in the present crisis to be so dim, is in large measure
a legacy of the mass murder which attended Suharto's rise to power.
In a bloodbath that claimed the lives of 500,000 to 1 million
Indonesians, the military, working hand-in-glove with the American
CIA, and utilizing the collaboration of the deposed nationalist
leader, Sukarno, exterminated the class conscious workers' movement
and all socialist elements within the intelligentsia.
What was the fatal political mistake that led to that tragic
defeat? It was the illusion, promoted by the pro-Chinese Stalinist
leadership of the Communist Party of Indonesia, that the workers
and oppressed peasants could place their political trust in a
section of the Indonesian bourgeoisie, including a layer of the
military, who were characterized as "progressive," "democratic"
and "patriotic."
In the current attempt to build up the stature of figures like
Rais, a declared supporter of the International Monetary Fund
and its "reform" agenda, and even military henchmen
such as armed forces chief General Wiranto, a new trap is being
laid for the Indonesian masses that would inevitably lead to a
bloody settling of accounts with the mass opposition.
If the democratic aspirations of the people are not to be cruelly
betrayed, certain historical features of the twentieth century
must be taken into account. The experience of this century has
demonstrated again and again that countries with a belated capitalist
development, like Indonesia, cannot overcome the legacy of social
deprivation and authoritarian rule within the framework of capitalism.
In the classic democratic revolutions of Western Europe and
North America, stretching from the 17th to the 19th centuries,
the rising bourgeoisie was able to mobilize the oppressed masses
in the name of the entire nation against the old feudal aristocracy
as well as the domination of colonial powers. In those nations,
however, where the emerging class of capitalist owners confronted
a world market already dominated by the older capitalist powers,
and a native working class whose social power and political organization
rivaled or even outstripped their own development, the bourgeoisie
has felt the need to curtail or abort democratic forms of rule
in favor of military or fascist methods. Such was the case in
Italy, Germany, Spain and Japan in the inter-war period of the
1920s and 1930s.
As for the post-World War II period, none of the former colonies
of Africa and Asia have evolved along genuinely democratic lines.
Even in India, often referred to as the world's largest democracy,
the legacy of feudal relations and caste oppression remains an
entrenched part of the life of the masses, while political power
remains firmly in the hands of a narrow and corrupt elite.
Indonesia is no exception. On the basis of capitalist private
ownership of the means of production and the imperialist-dominated
setup in East Asia, there are no serious prospects for a truly
democratic development. This fact is determined by the very nature
of the class relations in the country.
On the one hand there exist a massive working class and an
impoverished peasantry, and on the other, a very thin layer of
bourgeois exploiters, whose enormous wealth depends on the support
of the imperialist financial institutions, with whom it collaborates
in plundering the economy in return for a share of the loot. The
professional middle classes--traditionally a major base of social
support for parliamentary democracy--remains extremely narrow
and weak.
Moreover, in Indonesia, as in every other country with a delayed
capitalist development, the national bourgeoisie is incapable
of mobilizing the masses against imperialist domination. On the
one hand it is tied by a thousand threads to international finance
and the transnational corporations, and, on the other, it recognizes
in the working class at home the greatest threat to its property
and political power. Any mobilization of the oppressed masses
against foreign domination raises the mortal threat of social
revolution.
It is therefore no accident that every representative of the
present-day bourgeois opposition is complicit in the crimes of
the Suharto regime. These include not only the violent suppression
of the democratic rights of the masses within Indonesia, but also
the massacres carried out against the people of East Timor.
What are the real aims of the so-called democratic reform proposed
by imperialist leaders like Clinton and elements within the Indonesian
ruling class? First, to preserve the domination of the military.
Hence the attempt to present Wiranto, who, like every other military
leader has the blood of thousands on his hands, as a democrat.
Second, to maintain the political power and economic interests
of the Indonesian bourgeoisie. Third, and most imperatively, to
secure the interests and repay the loans of the imperialist banks.
What then is the way forward in the struggle for genuine democracy?
It must first be stressed that the realization of political democracy
is inseparable from a progressive resolution of the social issues
that confront the masses, i.e., the implementation of a program
to end unemployment, poverty and exploitation. The entire economic
structure of class privilege and inequality must be replaced by
a rational, humane and egalitarian system.
The enormous material resources of the country--and the entire
region--must be placed at the disposal and under the control of
the laboring masses, rather than a corrupt and privileged elite.
The first step is the confiscation of the vast holdings of Suharto,
his family and cronies, and their transformation into public enterprises
run by and for the working people.
Secondly, the subjugation of the Indonesian people to the imperialist
banks and transnational corporations must be ended. The first
step in this process is the repudiation of the national debt.
Finally, the struggle for democracy, social equality and an
end to imperialist oppression must be conducted not simply on
the national level, but rather the Indonesian workers must seek
to establish the closest unity in struggle with their brothers
and sisters in India, Korea, Taiwan, China, Japan and throughout
Asia.
The single social force capable of leading such a struggle
is the working class. It is to this powerful and genuinely progressive
force that the students must turn. The key to the struggle for
democracy is the independent political mobilization of the working
class in the struggle for a workers' government. The working class
must begin to build up its own democratic political institutions,
starting from the factories and work sites and leading to the
establishment of workers' councils to fight for a socialist program
and workers' power.
This statement is available as a formatted
PDF file to download and distribute
To read PDF files you will require Adobe Acrobat
Reader software (Download
Acrobat Reader)
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |