Saturday, August 23, 2014

Bukittinggi: The Town That Killed Colonialism

published @ The Jakarta Post

Pramoedya Ananta Toer, Indonesia’s most remarkable writer, once wrote a piece entitled The Book that Killed Colonialism. In it, he stressed the importance of Eduard Douwes Dekker’s 1859 novel Max Havelaar, which highlighted the misery wrought on Indonesians by the policy of forced cultivation. This book energized the liberal movement in the Netherlands, eventually leading to new, more ethical colonial policies, including Western education for Indonesians. 

Well, if a book can kill colonialism, then why shouldn’t a town be able to? That town is Bukittinggi. The back-story is the coffee trade and the scene is the Padri War.

Since the advent of Westerners arriving in West Sumatra, coffee as an export commodity had been thriving. To begin with, the Dutch held sway only in Padang and the surrounding coastal area. The coffee plantations were far inland. Then the Padri War broke out.

The war was ignited by a group of Wahabi-inspired clerics, recently returned from the Middle East. They insisted on the brutal implementation of fundamental Islam in the Minangkabau region. However, the clerics met resistance from traditional chiefs called the Kaum Adat. The war raged for decades.

In 1821, the embattled Kaum Adat asked for support from the Dutch in Padang. The Dutch were keen to help in order to safeguard their coffee supply chain and to gain power in areas where coffee was grown.

To strengthen their military position, the Dutch built the Fort de Kock in 1833 in the middle of the Agam plateau; the local Agam people named this colonial town Bukittinggi. The Dutch defeated the clerics in 1837.

To boost the economy, using the export of coffee as the backbone, the Dutch built infrastructure including schools and coffee warehouses, and trained locals to run the coffee-related businesses as well as the administration of the local government. The Minangkabau people were dragged into the modern era, giving birth to a class of Dutch-speaking local teachers, civil servants and intellectuals. This class and its offspring would later play a leading role in Indonesian independence.

A notably large proportion of Indonesian intellectuals involved in the struggle for independence were in some way related to Bukittinggi and nearby Koto Gadang, including Bung Hatta (1902-1980), Abdul Muis (1883-1959), Tan Malaka (1897-1949), Agus Salim (1884-1954) and Sutan Sjahrir (1907-1966).

Bung Hatta was a co-founder of the nation. Along with Bung Karno, he proclaimed and signed the declaration of Indonesian independence in 1945.

Tan Malaka was an underground fighter and a prolific writer. One of his books, Madilog, is still widely read. He also had the first clear vision of the country’s future, in 1925 writing an essay entitled Toward the Republic of Indonesia.

Both H. Agus Salim and Abdul Muis were activists in Sarekat Islam, the commercial-turned-political organization that spread nationalism all over the archipelago. Sutan Sjahrir was the first Indonesian prime minister. He played a key role in the 1946 Linggarjati agreement — the first negotiation between the Dutch and the formally declared Indonesian nation.

The Minangkabau people and their culture maximized the hidden benefits of Dutch rule, at least in part resulting in a consequence unintended by the colonialists: Indonesian independence.


* * * * *

Friday, August 15, 2014

RI's Democracy Homework

published @ The Jakarta Post

Democracy is a system to form a governing institution and its leader for a certain term through regular general elections. The underlying idea is to get wisdom from the crowd. However, effective democracy needs several intertwined conditions, including a relatively high-income society and a rules-conscious society.

People’s prosperity is the cornerstone of democracy. Psychologists know well that people who lose their wealth suffer more, as compared to long-time poor people. So, the richer the people, the more rational they will be. They will apply freedom hand in hand with obligation. They will not endanger their good lives by not participating in forming a legitimate government. Some experts suggest that democracy runs better in a country with a per capita income of more than US $10,000 a year. That’s why in earlier years suffrage was only for the rich and land owners.

The other substantive matter of democracy in a general election is competition. Rules are set and all participants must abide by these. There is a referee who supervises the competition and guarantees fair play. The competition results in a winner and inevitably a loser. And most importantly, the loser must accept the results gracefully. That’s why, in a mature democratic country, soon after the quick count result, the loser will give a concession speech and ask his supporters to support the winner. If not, democracy brings chaos.

These preconditions bring us to the current situation of RI’s nascent democracy. In fact, after 16 years RI’s democracy has run quite well. However, the recent dispute in the presidential election is a wake-up call. Here are some notes:

Hours after the election people got confused because the two camps claimed different results. One camp announced Prabowo Subianto’s win, but the other claimed Joko “Jokowi” Widodo won. But if we scrutinize further we find that the former camp carried out its survey with a tendency to justify Prabowo’s win. The latter’s result was similar to the General Election Commission’s (KPU’s) result. Obviously, the quick count had been used to disrupt the democratic process and give false hopes to the loser.

Second, there was the blow-up over baseless vote-rigging accusations. After expressing jubilation at “winning” the election, Prabowo‘s supporters asked people to wait for the KPU’s result, but one or two days before the KPU’s announcement Prabowo suddenly asked for a cancellation. Then he withdrew from the vote recapitulation process just minutes before the official announcement that declared Jokowi the winner.

As a last ditch effort, Prabowo resorted to his constitutional rights by filing his case with the Constitutional Court. He made accusations about a structured, systematic and massive vote rigging by the KPU.

Finally, some have blatantly abused the tools of democracy, such as the quick count and the right to dispute the results, since there is no solid proof — let alone 10 truckloads of evidence. Unfortunately, some people still buy this humbug and tolerate such denial of losing. This might be the corollary of a lack of education.
* * * * *