Abstract
This chapter discusses the historical context of the ties between national and local intellectuals with the alliance of the politico-business elite in the era of Soeharto regime. This chapter will show how the Soeharto regime cuts off intellectuals from their social basis and immediately afterwards makes them dependent on the State apparatus by positioning them into an integral part of the mass depoliticisation strategy. This chapter explains that the mass depoliticisation process developed by the New Order regime in a massive and excessive way has a powerful influence that keeps the intellectuals apart from being separated from their social base and also makes them have little choice but to build alliances with the dominant elite forces in order to obtain incentives material as well as gaining a respectable social status.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The ‘failed rebellion’ here refers to the PRRI rebellion, one of a series of small rebellions initiated by mid-ranking military officers in the late 1950s, which was supported by some national political elites from Masyumi (the modernist Islamic party) and PSI (Indonesian Socialist Party). This rebellion began when Soekarno was out of the country in 1958. The Masyumi leaders and the PSI leaders who were seen to be associated with the PRRI rebellion were regarded as traitors by Soekarno , and the incident contributed to his growing impatience with Islamist brinksmanship in the Konstituante (Barton 2010: 481–82).
- 2.
Based on their position and roles as anti-communist activists who supported Soeharto against Soekarno, the student leaders of HMI built a close relationship with the New Order regime, benefiting politically and economically from the regime’s support. For instance, Fahmi Idris as the head of the Arif Rahman Hakim anti-communist student militia utilised his network in the New Order regime to build the Kodel Business Group with other ‘1966 exponents’, including Soegeng Sarjadi, Jan Darmadi, Aburizal Bakrie and Ponco Sutowo. Fahmi Idris later joined Golkar (the New Order regime’s dominant political party) during the leadership of Sudharmono S.H. and was appointed as the Minister of Manpower in Soeharto’s last cabinet (March–May 1998). Mar’ie Muhammad was the head of HMI during the turmoil of regime change in 1965–66. He is famously known as a Mr. Clean technocrat in the Soeharto era, due to his opposition stance towards Soeharto family cronies. However, he could not overcome the pervasive power of the Soeharto regime’s predatory alliances. He became the Finance Minister in the last Soeharto cabinet. Another example is Sam Soeharto, an academic and politician who obtained his honourary professorship in microbiology at the Faculty of Medicine of Airlangga University. His career as a political activist started as the Head of Airlangga University’s Student Council during the turbulent 1965–66 period. Under his leadership, Airlangga University became the centre of the anti-communist student camp in East Java. After the short political honeymoon between the Soeharto military regime and student activists, Sam Soeharto distanced himself from the New Order, joining an Islamic party, the United Development Party (PPP). He was elected as a Member of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), serving there from 1977 to 1982. During his career in the PPP, he became frustrated with the party’s internal politics and accepted an invitation from key government figure, Muhammad Said, to enter Golkar in 1983. This invitation was extended because of Sam Soeharto’s earlier role in the struggle against the PKI . Since 1983, Sam Soeharto has remained in Golkar, being appointed as a member of the People’s Consultative Assembly representing Regional Representative Faction. Professor Sam Soeharto has continued to work to strengthen Golkar in the post-authoritarian era (Hefner 2000: 90, 204; Hudijono 2015: 41, 122–123, 125–127; Ensiklopedi Tokoh Indonesia 2015).
- 3.
Daniel Dhakidae (2003). Cendekiawan dan Kekuasaan dalam Negara Orde Baru. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
- 4.
Interview with Ex-PMKRI Activist KT, Jakarta, September 15, 2013.
- 5.
Interview with Harsutejo, the former Malang State University lecturer and the member of the Indonesian Scholars Association, the intellectual association affiliated with Left-wing forces in the Soekarno era, Jakarta, March 13, 2013.
- 6.
Interview with Tjuk K. Sukiadi , Surabaya, August 30, 2013.
- 7.
Interview with ex-1966 student activist and former East Java MKGR Golkar Wing elite, Suryomenggolo S.H., Surabaya, January 15, 2012.
- 8.
Interview with Harsutejo, Bekasi, West Java, March 13, 2014.
- 9.
Interview with ex-East Java student movement 66 Force, Suryomenggolo, Surabaya, January 15, 2013.
- 10.
Interview with Suryomenggolo S.H., Surabaya, January 15, 2013.
- 11.
The typologies of modernist and traditionalist Islam are due to the classification of three socio-religious interpretations of Islam that emerged since the eighteenth century. The traditionalist stream that can be called customary Islam was socially based in rural areas. The dominant articulator of this interpretation comes mostly from the ‘Ulama, whose socio-economic position includes occupying large landholdings (as landlords). This tradition was marked by the mixing of Islamic doctrine with the traditional culture embedded in the specific local areas. This Islamic stream was more tolerant of the syncretic-mixed process between Islamic doctrine and local culture. The social interactions among the traditionalist communities were indicated by hierarchy and social patronage between ‘Ulama scholars and religious disciples (in Indonesia called ‘Santri’). The relationship between ‘Ulama and Santri also showed the character of knowledge transfer within these communities. The intellectual development of these communities was initiated by K.H. Abdurrahman Wahid and his followers, who created a reinterpretation of Islamic traditional scholars’ works, in order to respond to modern and democratic values. The modernist stream, which can also be called ‘Liberal Islam’, was mostly based in urban areas. These communities were socio-economically driven by the Muslim bourgeoisie in urban areas. This Islamic stream tended to a less hierarchical relationship than did the traditionalist groups within its community. The modernist stream tried to rearticulate the virtue of Islamic teaching and daily life in the Prophet Muhammad’s era and that of his successors, in order to show the compatibility between Islam and modernity. Another Islamic stream that is present in Islamic societies and Indonesia is the revivalist Islamic interpretation. This Islamic interpretation has the objective of ‘purifying’ Islamic doctrine from both local traditions and modern values. This stream has mostly spread in urban areas and is socio-economically based within the Muslim bourgeoisie and entrepreneurs. This Islamic stream tends to preach a literal interpretation of Islamic doctrine, based on Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad’s Sunnah (verified accounts of the Prophet’s deeds and statements). Like the modernist tradition, this stream tends to find virtue in the Prophet Muhammad’s Islamic era, but it also tries to demonstrate the superiority of Islam to the values of modernity (Gellner 1981; Kruzman 1998: Hefner 2000; Barton 2002).
- 12.
This concept is based on the New Order political strategy of co-opting elements of civil society through the creation of various professional associations that were directed in a very centralised manner by the state. For instance, the New Order created the civil servant organisation (KORPRI), which was organically centralised into the state to ensure its loyalty. The New Order also created the only legal labour union in Indonesia, the FBSI (Labour Federation of Indonesia) in February 1973, which was replaced by SPSI (Indonesian Workers’ Union) in 1985 (Hadiz 1997; Ford 2009; Kammen 2001). The creation of these corporatist institutions is widely credited to the work of Ali Moertopo and his associates.
- 13.
This concept refers to the specific political mechanism created by the New Order elite apparatus to depoliticise society by creating a so-called floating mass , comprising the majority of the Indonesian people. This would be achieved by preventing political parties from building bases of support at the sub-district level. This political strategy was also created to anticipate political opposition towards the regime from political parties. This political mechanism is also widely credited to the initiative of Ali Moertopo and his associates.
- 14.
Interview with former East Java Golkar elite TN, Surabaya, 15 January 2013; interview with Jusuf Suroso, Jakarta September 15, 2013.
- 15.
Interview with former East Java Golkar elite TN, January 15, 2013; interview with ZI, the former leader of East Java Golkar wing, 15 April 2014; interview with KM, the 1970s student activist and East Java member of New Order era opposition group Petisi 50; interview in Surabaya December 1, 2012.
- 16.
Interview with Jalil Latuconsina (the 1970s student activist and East Java member of New Order era opposition group Petisi 50); interview in Surabaya, December 1, 2012.
- 17.
Interview with Suryomenggolo S.H., former member of the Regional Leadership Council of Golkar in East Java; January 15, 2012.
- 18.
Another example of the efforts to anticipate critical aspirations from the lower social classes , and to ensure that all radical jargon was driven away from the public space, was the state initiative to replace slogans such as buruh (labourer), karyawan (employee) and pekerja (worker). Meanwhile, in order to sustain minority identity in the social order hierarchy , the state also replaced the term Tionghoa (Chinese) with Cina (China)—with the latter term having negative connotations in Indonesia (Rochman and Achwan 2005: 199; Farid 2005: 169; Hadiz and Dhakidae 2005: 8).
- 19.
Interview with Muhammad Asfar, lecturer in the political science department of Airlangga University, Surabaya, October 17, 2012.
- 20.
Lieutenant General Prabowo Subianto and his military allies comprised a faction within the military elites who supported closer collaboration between the Soeharto regime, the military and the faction of political Islam that joined ICMI. In 1994, President Soeharto replaced some military elites who criticised the Soeharto manoeuvre to co-opt the Islamic social forces. Soeharto forced into retirement his military loyalist General Benny Moerdhani, who rejected the regime’s collaboration from his position as Defence Minister. The head of the armed forces’ powerful Bureau for Social and Political Affairs (SOSPOL), Lieutenant General Harsudiyono Hartas, a strong ICMI critic, was replaced by Lieutenant General Hartono. Hartono was known to be sympathetic to ICMI and also hostile towards the prominent NU leader opposition leader Abdurrahman Wahid. Soeharto also appointed the supporter of regime collaboration with Islamic forces General Feisal Tanjung as the new armed forces commander. Prabowo Subianto , Soeharto’s son-in-law and also son of Indonesia’s famous economist and prominent opposition intellectual in the Soekarno era, Professor Soemitro Djojohadikusumo, was also promoted rapidly within the top ranks of the military command. The replacement of some military officers who criticised ICMI, and the strong support from Soeharto for another camp who supported his decision to co-opt Islamic forces into the New Order regime, reflected factionalisation within the military elites. This tension inside the military is known as the tension between the Red-White Army faction (ABRI Merah-Putih/Nationalist) and the Green Army (ABRI Hijau/Muslim) (Hefner 2000: 151).
- 21.
Interview with Airlangga university scholar Haryadi, Surabaya, March 19, 2012.
- 22.
Interview with former East Java head of the PRD Dandik Katjasungkana in Surabaya, December 27, 2012.
Bibliography
Adjitorop, J. (1963). Kembangkan terus pekerjaan partai di kalangan intelegensia! In Dokumen-Dokumen Kongres Nasional Ke-VII (Luar Biasa) Partai Komunis Indonesia (pp. 169–182). Depagitprop, CC: PKI.
Ali, F., & Effendi, B. (1992). Merambah jalan baru Islam: rekontruksi pemikiran Islam Indonesia masa Orde Baru. Bandung: Mizan.
Aspinall, E. (2005). Opposing Soeharto: Compromise, resistance, and regime change in Indonesia. California: Stanford University Press.
Barton, Greg. (2002). Abdurrahman Wahid: Muslim democrat, Indonesian President: A view from the inside. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Barton, Greg. (2010). Indonesia: Legitimacy, secular democracy, and Islam. Politics & Policy, 38(3), 471–496.
Boudreau, V. (2004). Resisting dictatorship: Repression and protest in Southeast Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bourchier, D. (2015). Illiberal democracy in Indonesia: The ideology of the family State. New York: Routledge.
Burbach, R., Fox, M., & Fuentes, F. (2013). Latin America’s turbulent transitions: The future of twenty-first-century socialism. London: Zed Books
Coutinho, C. N. (2012). Gramsci’s political thought. Leiden: Brill.
Chalmers, I., & Hadiz, V. R. (Eds.). (1997). The politics of economic development in Indonesia: Contending perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Crouch, H. (1988). The army and politics in Indonesia. USA: Cornell University Press.
Crouch, H. (2007, January 1) [1978]. The army and politics in Indonesia. Equinox Publishing (similar with previous one).
Dhakidae, D. (2003). Cendekiawan dan kekuasaan dalam negara Orde Baru. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Dijk, Kees Van. (2001). A country in despair: Indonesia between 1997 and 2000. Leiden: KITLV Press.
Effendy, B. (2003). Islam and the state in Indonesia. Singapore: ISEAS.
Eldridge, P. J. (1995). Non-government organizations and democratic participation in Indonesia. Kuala Lumpur and New York. Oxford University Press.
Eklof, S. (1999). Indonesian politics in crisis: The long fall of Soeharto, 1996–98. Copenhagen: NIAS Press.
Ensiklopedi Tokoh Indonesia. (2015). Ensiklopedi Tokoh Indonesia, Marie Muhammad. Mr Clean ditengah maraknya korupsi. http://www.tokohindonesia.com/biografi/article/285-ensiklopedi/1595-mr-clean-di-tengah-maraknya-korupsi
Farid, Hilmar. (2005). The class question in Indonesian Social Science. In V. R. Hadiz & Daniel Dhakidae (Eds.), Social science and power in Indonesia (pp. 167–196). Singapore and Jakarta: Equinox Publishing and ISEAS.
Feith, H. (1980). Legitimacy questions and the Soehartopolity. In J. J. Fox (Ed.), Indonesia: Australian perspectives (pp. 649–655). Canberra: Australian National University.
Ford, M. (2009). Workers and intellectuals: NGOs, trade unions and the Indonesian labour movement. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press, Hawaii University Press, and KITLV.
Forgacs, D., & Hobsbawm, E. (2000). The Antonio Gramsci reader: Selected writings 1916–1935. New York: New York University Press.
Gellner, E. (1981). Muslim society. New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Gramsci, A., Hoare, Q., & Nowell-Smith, G. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. USA: International Publishers.
Greif, S. W. (1988). Indonesians of Chinese Origin: Assimilation and the Goal of One Nation-One People. USA: University of Michigan.
Hadiz, V. R. (1997). Workers and the state in New Order Indonesia. London: Routledge.
Hadiz, V. R., & Dhakidae, D. (2005). Social science and power in Indonesia. Jakarta and Singapore: Equinox-ISEAS.
Hadiz, V. R. (2010). Localising Power in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia: A Southeast Asia perspective. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Hadiz, V. R. (2013). The rise of capital and the necessity of political economy. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 43(2), 208–225.
Hadiz, V. R., & Heryanto, A. (2005). Post-authoritarian Indonesia: A comparative Southeast Asian perspective. Critical Asian Studies, 37(2), 251–275.
Hefner, R. W. (2002). Civil Islam and democracy reconsidered. Kultur: The Indonesian Journal for Muslim Cultures (Jakarta), 2(1), 1–11.
Heryanto, A. (2005). Ideological baggage and orientations of the social sciences in Indonesia. In V. R. Hadiz & D. Dhakidae (Ed.), Social science and power in Indonesia. Jakarta and Singapore: Equinox-ISEAS.
Hill, D. (2010). Journalism and politics in Indonesia: A critical biography of Mochtar Lubis (1922–2004). New York: Routledge.
Huntington, S. P. (2006). Political order in changing societies. USA: Yale University Press.
Hudijono, A. (2015). Antara mikrobiologi dan mikropolitik: Perjalanan hidup Sam Soeharto. Jakarta: Gramedia.
Hefner, R. W. (2000). Civil Islam: Muslims and democratization in Indonesia. UK: Princeton University Press.
Irwan, A. (2005). Institutions, discourses and conflict in economic thought. In V. R. Hadiz & D. Dhakidae (Eds.), Social science and power in Indonesia (pp. 31–56). Singapore: Equinox ISEAS.
Kammen, D. (2001). Review of a country in despair: Indonesia between 1997 and 2000. Indonesia, 72(October), 205–206.
Kingsbury, D. (2004). Key issues in development. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kruzman, C. (1998). Liberal Islam: A sourcebook. New York: Oxford University Press.
Laksono, P. M. (2005). Social science associations. In V. R. Hadiz & D. Dhakidae (Eds.), Social science and power in Indonesia (pp. 221–246). Jakarta and Singapore: Equinox and ISEAS.
Latif, Y. (2003). Indonesian Muslim intelligentsia and power. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Latif, Y. (2008). Indonesian Muslim intelligentsia and power. Singapore: ISEAS.
Lane, M. (2008). Unfinished nation: Indonesia before and after Soeharto. UK: Verso Books.
Langenberg, M. (1990). The New Order state: Language, ideology, hegemony. In A. Budiman (Ed.), State and civil society in Indonesia (pp. 121–149). Australia: Monash Papers on Southeast Asia No.22.
Langenberg, M. van (1996). Negara Orde Baru: Bahasa, Ideologi dan Hegemoni. In Y. Latif & I. S. Ibrahim (Eds.). Bahasa dan Kekuasaan: Politik Wacana di Panggung Orde Baru. Bandung: Mizan.
Marx, K. (2008). The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Maryland, United States: Wildside Press.
Mas’oed, M. (1989). Ekonomi dan struktur politik Orde Baru, 1966–1971. Jakarta: LP3ES.
McGregor, K. E. (2007). History in uniform: Military ideology and the construction of Indonesia’s past. Singapore: Asian Studies Association of Australia in association with National University of Singapore Press.
Moertopo, A. (1973). Dasar-dasar pemikiran tentang akselerasi modernisasi pembangunan 25 Tahun. Jakarta: CSIS.
Oetomo, D. (2007). Militer(isme), intelektual dan bahasa politik Indonesia. In B. T. Wardaya et al. (Eds.), Menelusuri akar otoritarianisme di Indonesia (pp. 173–188). Jakarta: ELSAM.
Parsons, T. (1975). Social Systems and The Evolution of Action Theory. New York: The Free Press.
Peters, R. (2013). Surabaya, 1945–2010: Neighbourhood, State and Economy in Indonesia’s City of Struggle. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Porta, D., & Diani, M. (1999). Social movements: An introduction. USA, UK, and Australia: Willey-Blackwell.
Pranarka, A. M. W. (1985). Sejarah Pemikiran tentang Pancasila. Jakarta: Yayasan Proklamasi, Centre for Strategic and International Studies.
Priyatno, A. (1993). Pak Said dalam kilas balik perjalanan saya. In A. Salim, B. Hariawan, & P. Soebardan (Eds.), Sosok Moch Said di tengah pergulatan politik Jatim. Surabaya: La Media.
Raillon, F. (1989). Politik dan ideologi mahasiswa Indonesia. Jakarta: LP3ES.
Reeve, D. (2013). Golkar, sejarah yang hilang: Akar pemikiran & dinamika. Depok: Komunitas Bambu.
Robison, R. (1986). Indonesia: The rise of capital. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Robison, R. (1987). Indonesia: The rise of capital (3rd ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Robison, R. (1996). Pathways to Asia: The politics of engagement. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Robison, R., & Hadiz, V. R. (2004). Reorganising power in Indonesia: The politics of oligarchy in an age of markets. London: Routledge.
Robison, R. (Eds.). (2006). The neo-liberal revolution: Forging the market state. London: Palgrave.
Robison, R. (1990). Power and economy in Soeharto’s Indonesia. Manila: Journal of Contemporary Asia Publishers.
Robison, R. (1988). Authoritarian states, capital-owning classes, and the politics of newly industrializing countries: The case of Indonesia. World Politics, 41(1), 52–74.
Rochman, M. G., & Achwan, R. (2005). Inclusion and exclusion: NGOs and critical social knowledge. In V. R. Hadiz & D. Dhakidae (Eds.), Social Science and Power in Indonesia (pp. 197–220). Singapore and Jakarta: Equinox and ISEAS.
Rodan, G. (1996). Political oppositions in industrializing Asia. USA and Canada: Routledge.
Rosser, A. (2002). The politics of economic liberalization in Indonesia State, market and power. Abingdon and USA: Routledge.
Schwarz, A. (2000). A nation in waiting: Indonesia’s search for stability. Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Simpson, B. (2008). Economists with guns: Authoritarian development and U.S.-Indonesian relations, 1960–1968. California: Stanford University Press.
Southwood, J., & Flanagan, P. (2013). Teror Orde Baru: Penyelewengan Hukum dan propaganda 1965–1981. Depok: Komunitas Bambu.
Susilowati, W. (2012). Patriotisme dan Dinamika Resimen Kampus. Bandung: Nuansa Cendekia Foundation.
Sukiadi, T. K. (1993). Gajah Mada, Jawa Timur kontemporer. In A. Salim, B. Hariawan, & P. Soebardan (Eds.), Sosok Moch Said di tengah pergulatan politik Jatim (pp. 149–158). Surabaya: La Media.
Sukiadi, T. K. (2013). Interview with Tjuk K. Sukiadi, Surabaya, August 30, 2013.
Soeharto, P. (1993). Said berwajah ganda. In A. Salim, B. Hariawan, & P. Soebardan (Eds.), Sosok Moch Said di tengah pergulatan politik Jatim (pp. 91–96). Surabaya: La Media
Thaba, A. A. (1996). Islam dan Negara dalam Politik Orde Baru. Jakarta: Gema Insani Press.
The Peking Review. (1965, October 22, Vol 43). Protest to Indonesian Government.
Tornquist, O. (1984). Dilemmas of Third World communism: The destruction of the PKI in Indonesia. London: Zed Books.
Wanandi, J. (2012). Shades of grey: A political memoir of modern Indonesia 1965–1998. Jakarta and Singapore: Equinox Publishing.
Winters, J. A. (1996). Power in motion: Capital mobility and the Indonesian state. Cornel, USA: Cornell University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kusman, A.P. (2019). Historical Context of the Relationship Between East Javanese Intellectuals and the Political Elite. In: The Vortex of Power. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0155-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0155-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0154-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0155-1
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)