Quo Vadis Desa Pasca-PNPM Mandiri. Undangan Mengurusi Ruang-ruang Pertarungan dan Perundingan untuk Membangun Infrastruktur dan Kekuatan Gerakan Sosial

Noer Fauzi Rachman*)

  Dimuat sebagai Noer Fauzi Rachman (2015) "Quo Vadis Desa Pasca-PNPM Mandiri.  Undangan Mengurusi Ruang-ruang Pertarungan dan Perundingan untuk Membangun Infrastruktur dan Kekuatan Gerakan Sosial"    https://www.jogloabang.com/sites/default/files/dokumen/rachman-2015-quo-vadis-desa-pasca-2.pdf

   Kami yang meneliti program-program penanggulangan kemiskinan, baik melalui pemahaman yang merentang dalam waktu (diakronis) maupun dalam ruang (sinkronis), mahfum bahwa Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Mandiri (PNPM Mandiri) berada dalam suatu babak, yang ada mulanya dan ada akhirnya, dan perlu dihubungkan dengan konteks perluasan hubungan-hubungan sosial kapitalis secara lebih luas dan menyejarah. Pemahaman semacam itu akan membebaskan kita dari perangkap melihat PNPM Mandiri hanya sebagai “suatu program nasional” yang dibentuk oleh strategi pemerintahan nasional untuk “menanggulangi kemiskinan.” 

   Dengan menempatkannya demikian, kita akan sampai pada pertanyaan bagaimana awal mula PNPM Mandiri dan perjalanannya, bagaimana konteks internasional dari proyek pembangunan itu, dan berada pada konteks perkembangan kapitalisme Indonesia macam bagaimana, serta bagaimana cara rezim penguasa nasional memfungsikannya? 

   Krisis finansial Asia yang dimulai sejak Juli 1997 merembet dan melanda hampir seluruh Asia, tanpa kecuali Indonesia, bermuara pada kemelut politik yang berujung mundurnya Jenderal Soeharto sebagai salah satu diktatur penguasa rezim nasional terlama di negara-negara pasca-kolonial. Situasi sosial-politik di desa dan kota di Indonesia pasca-runtuhnya rezim otoriter Soeharto pada 1998 menjadi alas bagi kebijakan-kebijakan pembangunan yang baru dalam menanggulangi kemiskinan. Secara generik, bersama desentralisasi, social fund adalah suatu aransemen dari badan pembangunan internasional (termasuk Bank Dunia dan Dana Moneter Internasional) menghadapi kekisruhan sosial yang meluas, termasuk food riot, agar pemerintah dapat berhasil mewujudkan tatanan pengaturan yang baru secara nasional (lihat, World Bank 2001). Jaring Pengaman Sosial (JPS) yang berhasil menjalankan tugasnya menunjukkan pemerintah bisa bekerja secara nasional menjangkau hampir seluruh sektor yang berhubungan dengan kemiskinan: beras untuk orang miskin, pendidikan, kesehatan, penyediaan lapangan pekerjaan, kredit pertanian pangan, pemberdayaan masyarakat, dan sebagainya. 

   Evolusi lebih lanjut dari social fund, Bank Dunia memprogramkan Community Driven Development (CDD) secara luas melalui (a) Program Pengembangan Kecamatan (PPK) dan (b) Program Penanggulangan Kemiskinan Perkotaan (P2KP).

   Setelah lima tahun implementasi, Susan Wong dan Scott Gugenheim (2005:253- 267) menulis bahwa CDD dinilai mampu meningkatkan kualitas kerangka kerja desentralisasi dengan cara: 

1. Lebih mendorong partisipasi warga negara, suara, dan akuntabilitas pemerintahan lokal; 
2. Menyediakan cara yang efektif untuk menyampaikan pelayanan yang amat dibutuhkan dalam konteks desentralisasi dengan biaya yang lebih efektif dan waktu yang lebih efisien; serta 
3. Secara langsung menginformasikan dan membentuk aturan desentralisasi. 

Keampuhannya menata ulang kepemerintahan lokal itu menjadi salah satu dasar mengapa Pemerintah Indonesia pada 2007 mengangkutnya menjadi “program nasional” di bawah Menteri Kordinator Kesejahteraan Rakyat (Menko Kesra) dan diberi nama Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Mandiri (PNPM Mandiri). Sejak 2007 dan seterusnya, PNPM Mandiri menjadi program andalan untuk pengentasan kemiskinan menjangkau 2.827 kecamatan dengan alokasi anggaran sekitar Rp 3,6 triliun. Pada 2008, jumlah yang dijangkau menjadi 3.999 kecamatan dengan anggaran yang disediakan sekitar 13 triliun rupiah. Sementara pada 2009 diagendakan seluruh kecamatan di Indonesia yang berjumlah sekitar 5.263 kecamatan akan mendapat PNPM Mandiri. 

   Pada 2007, bantuan langsung sebesar Rp 750 juta-1,5 miliar per kecamatan, sedangkan pada 2008 besar bantuan per kecamatan sudah ada yang mencapai Rp 3 miliar (Menko Kesra, 2008). Hingga akhir masa kepemimpinan SBY-Boediono pada 2014, secara total PPK dan PNPM Mandiri Perdesaan telah mengalokasikan dana Bantuan Langsung Masyarakat (BLM) sebesar Rp 74,46 triliun. Sedangkan dana BLM P2KP dan PNPM Mandiri Perkotaan tahun 2008-2013 sebesar Rp 9,124 triliun dan pada 2014 dana yang dialokasikan sebesar Rp 1,380 triliun. Kedua jenis program tersebut diklaim “telah menghasilkan berbagai dampak positif terhadap peningkatan kapasitas, kesejahteraan, dan kemandirian masyarakat” (Tim PNPM 2014) 

   Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono dan Wakil Presiden Boediono memperoleh manfaat besar dari PNPM Mandiri, di tengah situasi di mana kapitalisme dalam berbagai wujud bekerja sebagai sistem produksi, sirkulasi, dan konsumsi berkembang secara meluas difasilitasi pemerintah pusat dan daerah sedemikan rupa, sehingga kesenjangan distribusi pendapatan di Indonesia mencapai puncaknya (Indeks Gini hampir mencapai 0,41). 

Yang Dihasilkan 

   Banyak ilustrasi bisa ditunjukkan bagaimana masyarakat miskin, baik di perdesaaan maupun perkotaan, yang telah dibiasakan dengan proyek-proyek PNPM Mandiri bukan hanya menjadi sadar mengenai persoalan birokrasi pemerintah yang sentralistik, birokratis, otoriter, pemburu rente, koruptif, dan juga keharusan mereka beralih menjadi pemerintah yang lebih partisipatif, responsif, demokratis, transparan, dan akuntabel. Lebih dari itu mereka menempa diri menjadi komunitas- komunitas perdesaan dan perkotaan yang dengan prinsip-prinsip baru itu bisa tampil menjadi kekuatan pembaru yang cocok dengan mekanisme pasar tanpa mempersoalkan perkembangan kapitalisme Indonesia dalam bentuk sistem produksi, sirkulasi, dan konsumsi yang menciptakan ketidakadilan sosial, kesenjangan ekonomi, dan kerusakan lingkungan yang semakin parah. 

   Lebih lanjut, kita perlu menengok kajian kritis Frederick Rawski yang menyimpulkan bahwa proyek-proyek CDD “bukan hanya bertujuan memaksimalisasi efisiensi penyaluran dana internasional serta menyokong lembaga-lembaga pemerintahan lokal, melainkan juga memengaruhi cara orang- orang berfikir mengenai hubungan sosial dalam komunitas mereka dan antar- komunitas, negara, dan lembaga-lembaga internasional” (Rawski 2005:920). Rawski menunjukkan bagaimana struktur administratif PPK membuka persaingan di antara kelompok-kelompok individu dalam proses penyampaian proposal proyek untuk perolehan dana. Semua itu, “mencerminkan penekanan neoliberal terhadap enterpreneurship, inovasi individual, dan kompetisi pasar bebas .... Norma-nilai demikian itu menyertakan sejumlah prinsip, seperti akuntabilitas (dilaksanakan melalui pelbagai aturan maupun prosedur yang mensyaratkan transparansi dalam pengambilan keputusan), dan hak partisipasi individu (yang dilaksanakan melalui aturan maupun prosedur seperti voting, sistem kuota, dan kewajiban konsultasi)” (Rawski 2005:942). 

   Kita juga perlu menengok karya Tania Li (2009), The Will to Improve, yang menunjukkan bagaimana proyek-proyek tersebut berhasil “memerintah melalui komunitas” dalam rangka mengatur ulang aspirasi, keyakinan, perilaku, tindakan, dan hal-hal mental lainnya—semua adalah bagian dari upaya menempa rakyat yang sebelumnya tidak/belum memiliki posisi maupun karakteristik sebagai pelaku pasar (non-market subject). 

   Sementara Toby Carroll menjelaskan penciptaan subjek demikian itu: “membangun kembali kewargaan dari “bawah ke atas” (bottom up), yang tetap kompatibel dengan pasar liberal, dengan memakai dana berbasis-utang untuk infrastruktur ekonomi dan sosial produktif sebagai insentif. Pendek kata, “para pendukung PPK menggunakan teknologi politik “pembangunan partisipatif” sebagai alat pengantar yang jelas berbeda dan sementara waktu efektif untuk memperluas hubungan sosial kapitalis dan lembaga-lembaga yang ditempatkan oleh ortodoksi pembangunan”.[1]

   Saat ini, elite pemerintahan nasional yang terpilih melalui Pemilu 2014 dan ditunjuk Jokowi-JK memimpin lembaga-lembaga pemerintahan nasional telah menghentikan kontrak kerja para fasilitator PNPM Mandiri pada 31 Desember 2014, dan mengklaim punya cara baru dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 2014 tentang Desa yang secara eksplisit hendak meletakkan desa sebagai arena, aktor, dan perspektif, untuk mengurus orang miskin. 

   Pertanyaan penting dan menantang untuk diurus secara serius adalah bagaimana status dan dinamika desa sebagai arena, aktor, dan perspektif dalam konteks perluasan hubungan sosial kapitalis di bidang produksi, sirkulasi, dan konsumsi yang berbeda antara satu tempat dengan tempat lain. Siapakah yang tertarik meneliti bagaimana semua itu secara aktual mewujud dan berhubungan dengan perubahan agraria dan krisis sosial-ekologis yang secara berbeda-beda melanda beragam tempat di Nusantara? 

Berikut adalah kerangka konseptual dari krisis sosial ekologis yang dapat dijadikan rujukan yang diberikan oleh Hendro Sangkoyo (2014): 

Tantangan bagi gerakan sosial 

Dalam kesempatan di makalah ini, kami ingin mengerjakan kembali alat kerja analitik yang dikembangkan oleh Gillian Hart (2001), khususnya mengenai pembedaan antara Pembangunan (dengan huruf “P” besar), atau Development,[2]  sebagai “suatu proyek intervensi paska-perang dunia kedua terhadap negara-negara ‘dunia ketiga’ yang berkembang dalam konteks dekolonisasi dan perang dingin (cold war), dengan pembangunan (dengan “p” kecil) yang merupakan pembangunan kapitalis, capitalist development, sebagai suatu rangkai proses sejarah yang dipenuhi dengan beragam kontradiksi dan secara geografis perkembangannya tidak sama antara satu lokasi dengan lokasi lainnya” (Hart 2001:650 yang merujuk di antaranya pada karya Cowen and Stanton 1996; lihat juga Hart 2004, 2006).[3]

Bagi kami, dengan menempatkan PNPM dalam konteks pembangunan kapitalis, menjadi jelas terlihat bahwa badan-badan pemerintah daerah dan kelompok-kelompok komunitas sedang ditempa melalui cara sedemikian rupa sehingga mereka menjadi pelaku-pelaku yang diatur dan mengatur dirinya sendiri sebagai neoliberal subject – yang dibutuhkan bagi kelanjutan dari pembangunan kapitalis yang lebih luas. Bagaimana proses ini bisa terlihat adalah satu hal, sedangkan bagaimana proses ini mencapai tujuannya adalah hal lain. Tidak ada jaminan bahwa skenario itu akan dengan sendirinya bisa terlihat dan dapat tercapai. 

Argumen utama yang dikemukakan disini adalah bahwa yang dapat dipastikan adalah tersedianya berbagai ruang pertarungan dan perundingan (spaces of contestation and negotiation) baru dimana berbagai kekuatan sosial – baik yang berasal dari kekuatan dari pihak masyarakat politik, pengusaha kapitalistik, organisasi gerakan sosial -- dapat aktif terlibat, atau juga dapat menolak, atau tidak memiliki kapasitas untuk terlibat, membentuk, mengisi ruang-ruang itu, serta untuk selanjutnya secara dialektis dibentuk kembali oleh arah, dinamika dan hasil pertarungan dan perundingan beragam kekuatan-kekuatan tersebut. Ruang-ruang itu senantiasa bergerak dan berubah dari waktu-ke waktu. 

Merupakan salah satu tantangan dari kita para pelaku utama gerakan sosial untuk mengikuti dan menganalisa secara kongkrit pergerakan menyempit dan meluasnya ruang-ruang itu, rute perjalanan berbagai kekuatan sosial dan cara bagaimana berbagai kekuatan itu bekerja dalam ruang-ruang itu dari waktu ke waktu, dan menghubungkan kesemuanya itu dengan aktualisasi pembangunan kapitalis yang secara geografis dan historis berbeda antara satu lokasi dengan lokasi lainnya. 

 

Daftar Pustaka 

Carrol, Toby. 2009. “'Social Development' as Neoliberal Trojan Horse: The World Bank and the Kecamatan Development Program in Indonesia”. Development and Change 40(3):447–466.

_____. 2010. “Pembangunan Sosial sebagai ‘Kuda Troya’ Neoliberal. Bank Dunia dan Program Pengembangan Kecamatan Prisma 29(3):84-101.

Cowen, Michael and Robert W. Shenton. 1996. Doctrines of Development. London: Routledge 

Craigh, David and Doug Porter. 2006. Development Beyond Neoliberalism? Governance, Poverty Reduction and Political Economy. London: Routledge. 

De Angelis, Massimo. 2000. " Marx’s Theory of Primitive Accumulation: A Suggested Reinterpretation." in Working Paper No. 29. Departement of Economics. University of EastAnglia London. Available at http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/M.DeAngelis/PRIMMACCA.htm.

—. 2001. " Marx and Primitive Accumulation: The Continuous Character of Capital’s ‘Enclosures’." The Commoner 2 (September) (available at www.thecommoner.org).

—. 2004. "Separating the Doing and the Deed: Capital and the Continuous Character of Enclosures." Historical Materialism 12:57-87.

—. 2007. The Begining of History. Vaule Struggles and Global Capital. London: Pluto Press.

Hart, Gillian. 2001. “Development Debates in the 1990s: Culs de sac and Promising Paths.” Progress in Human Geography 25, 605–14.

___. 2004. “Geography and Development: Critical Ethnography.” Progress in Human Geography 28:91–100

___.2006. "Denaturalizing Dispossession: Critical Ethnography in the Age of Resurgent Imperialism." Antipode 38:977-1004.

Harvey, David. 2003. The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

___. 2004. "The 'New' Imperialism: Accumulation by Disposession." in Socialist Register 2004, edited by L. Panitch and C. Leys. New York: Monthly Review Press.

—. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

—. 2006. Space of Global Capitalism: Toward a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. London: Verso. Guggenheim, Scott, Tatag Wiranto, Yogana Prasta, and Susan Wong. 2004. "Indonesia's Kecamatan Development Program: A Large-Scale Use of Community Development to Reduce Poverty." in Scaling Up Poverty Reduction: A Global Learning Processes and Conference. Shanghai.

Li, Tania Muray. 2009. The Will to Improve. Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics. Durham, Duke University Press.
Menko Kesra 2008. Pedoman Umum PNPM Mandiri. Jakarta: Kementerian Kordinator Kesejahteraan Rakyat. Perelman, Michael. 2000. The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation. Durham: Duke University Press.

Tim Kordinasi PNPM Mandiri. 2014. Paket Informasi PNPM Mandiri 2014. Jakarta: Tim Kordinasi PNPM Mandiri. Rawski, Frederick. 2005. "World Bank Community-Driven Development Programming in Indonesia and East Timor: Implications for the Study of Administrative Law." New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 37:919-951.

Sangkoyo, Hendro. 2014. “Krisis Sosial Ekologi”. Salah satu bagan dalam file presentasi untuk “Pelatihan Etnografi untuk Litbang Kompas”. Jakarta, Desember 2014

Wong, Susan and Scott Guggenheim. 2005. "Community-Driven Development: Decentralization's Accountability Challenge." Pp. 253-267 in East Asia Decentralizes: Making Local Government Work, edited by T. W. Bank. Washington: The World Bank.

World Bank. 2001. "Promoting Good Governance with Social Funds and Decentralization." PREM Notes Public Sector 51. 

 

---

*) Noer Fauzi Rachman, PhD., adalah Direktur Sajogyo Institute untuk Dokumentasi dan Studi-studi Agraria Indonesia. Pendiri dan Ketua Dewan Pengarah Badan Prakarsa Pemberdayaan Desa dan Kawasan (BP2DK).

[1] Toby Carroll, “Pembangunan Sosial sebagai ‘Kuda Troya’ Neoliberal“, dalam Prisma, Vol. 29, No. 3, Juli 2010, hal. 86.

[2] Sudah menjadi pegangan dalam pengajaran Studi Pembangunan bahwa Pembangunan adalah suatu proyek internasional merupakan suatu bentuk intervensi yang khusus yang dijalankan secara masif setelah Perang Dunia Kedua di negara-negara yang baru merdeka. Perang Dingin maupun hubungan internasional setelah itu sangat kuat memberi pegaruh pada bentuk-bentuk dari proyek Pembangunan (Lihat misalnya Craigh and Porter 2006, McMichael 2008).

[3] Untuk memahami pembangunan kapitalis yang tidak sama (uneven capitalist development), kami merasa penting untuk menunjukkan pentingnya apa yang Karl Marx kemukakan mengenai ‘akumulasi primitif’, yang baru-baru ini memperoleh tempatnya kembali melalui penafsiran baru dari Michael Perelman (2000), Massimo de Angelis (2000, 2001, 2004, 2007) dan David Harvey (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006). Kami menyambung dengan pandangan Paul Cammack (2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2003, 2004) yang menghubungan proses ‘akumulasi primitive’ ini dengan peran proyek-proyek Bank Dunia. Dengan demikian kita punya dasar teoritik yang kuat untuk mengundang untuk memeriksa bagaimana proyek-proyek itu berhubungan dengan proses-proses akumulasi primitif itu dalam rangka di satu pihak menghasilkan konsep-konsep yang kongkrit, dan hubungan-hubungan di antaranya, yang lebih mampu menjelaskan kenyataan-kenyataan yang baru berkembang.

Undoing the Unequal Global Paradigm by Recapturing the Imagination of the Bandung Conference

 

Noer Fauzi Rachman

a Keynote address by Noer Fauzi Rachman at University of Minnesota's Seminar on "60th Anniversary of the Bandung ConferenceL From the Non-Aligned Movement to Global South Solidarity?", Tue, 02/17/2015 - 4:00pm, 1210 Heller Hall.  

https://archive.icgc.umn.edu/events/4564/60th-anniversary-bandung-conferencel-non-aligned  

“The peoples of Asia and Africa are now animated by a keen and sincere desire to renew their old cultural contacts and develop new ones in the context of the modern world.”

(Final Communique of the Asia-African Conference, 1955) 

 

 

An Opening

Showing a series of pictures from Asia Africa Conference with Waljinah "Tanah Airku Indonesia" (9 minutes 22 second)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nldXHtLmZH8

 

Thank you for having me here. I am honored to be a part of 60th anniversary of the Bandung Conference. Surprisingly the title of this event: “From the Non-Aligned Movement to Global South Solidarity?” with a question mark at the end precisely and brilliantly captures the points that I would like to make and to engage today in conversation with all of you.

Therefore, before I proceed with my talk, I would like to share my gratitude to Professor Michael Goldman who is very brave, because he is taking a risk asking me to deliver the keynote for this event.  His book, Imperial Nature: The World Bank and Struggles for Social Justice in the Age of Globalization, that has inspired many scholars critical of development in the sense of financialization of the “third word, and its critique,” has been a textbook for some of us in social movement studies. I also want to thank Professor Diyah Larasati, who is known among her peers as a transnational feminist and a fierce—“seemingly” Marxist—post colonial theorist. This hospitality—being a part of this event—actually has been giving me a different kind of pressure, particularly how to make my talk  “engage” in honoring both Professor Larasati’s  political desire as a comrade in the space of transnational scholarship and Professor Goldman’s critics of development and internationalization while still ensuring that this event will embrace the spirit of the Bandung conference with its notion of solidarity, as articulated by Sukarno, to be a collaborative engagement on internationalism and the possibilities of revolutionary thinking.

I also thank the Institute of Global Studies, the Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Global Change, and the Institute for Advanced Studies at University of Minnesota, many other departments such as Dance Program and MIRC, and many invisible labors for their support of my presence.

 

I. Micro Politics: Nation States and Bandung.

I am an activist who was mostly work underground during Suharto regime, mobilizing peasants in Indonesia since 1990. I also an interlocutor Critical Agrarian Studies in Indonesia. With that characterization of my praxis and its identity, I have a genuine confession to make to you, a warning about—perhaps—the lack of contemporary discourse on solidarity and other forms of global engagement theory, or far worse security studies, because we are talking about the “international.”  Therefore, I would like to invite you to think about the spirit of Bandung through a different kind of imagination; namely a tactic, a strategic visioning of the so-called new globalized interconnectivity of the everyday in many places. This everyday in many places, once defined by Soekarno, the first president of Indonesia and the leader of the Bandung Conference, as a characterization that has many differences, but is also, he suggests, a space to engage through our detestation. By this, he was reminding the audience about the issues of race and colonialism.[1] In today’s engagement I will expand this notion of race and colonialism through the mapping of a new kind of global cooptation, commodification, and interculturalism in the language of global designs of internationalism.  Also, I will address the surrender of that spirit of resistance—as it has been considered a form of radicalism of the now—of our time.

Today’s commemoration is also another example of such dreams, but in different space/place that also provokes/convinces limits and possibilities.

I have to open with the idea of ‘commemoration,” so that we share the possibility of our remembering, one that has been perhaps different, but marking that counter point of possibility. As if I am a guest, my body is in limited access, but still now I am here, so how then do I speak all of that to you, including the notions of “limit” and access.  Are we, or could we,  imagine a similar reference of this particular context that I am talking about, especially when the limits of particularity arise from the specific question of “Otherness” as famously Edward Said suggests?[2] Or Translatibility  that I borrow from Shaden Tageldin work.[3]

As we celebrate the 60  years of Bandung, as that particular marker of remembering for us especially, the knowledge of the global south—displaced—continues to be a new hope; often the part of the globe that has been free from being colonized creates new characteristics in the matter of the dependency complex, be it financialization and/or other forms of militarization. I argue that the language of discrimination then, as Soekarno pointed out at the Bandung event, exists and persistently prevented us from working together until today.

Therefore, I stand here with you, to commemorate the event with particular attention to how this engagement enables us to dream and create possibilities. I will deliberately offer playfulness in this conversation by making a new and old historicity of exchange as a form of timeless event, but reformulated anew. For example, consider how crisis (i.e. social ecological crisis) is a chaotic and stubborn example of this kind of old and new reformulation of relationships—the cooptation, the localization of global designs of disasters, let us say through agrarian politics. This claim I intentionally created without making the government into a new state order free from responsibility, while also pondering the global responsibility of their accesses and expenditures.

Thinking these relationships, which are often defined by many different positionalities or power structures that are embodied within governmentality, I question that new kinds of relationships from the colonizer and the colonized, not only as a form of colonial memory but of how then the engagement with the wound at the present time and possible future occurs.  

Let us consider the global north (in the now, where we are at this point/in this room) and in reverse where I am from, the global south. This relationship emerges at one point as a collage of collaborative militarization in 1965 when many rural peoples were killed in massacres and massive changes to the notion of natural resource extractives regime; urbanism and industrialization took place that also failed to create tangible livelihoods. So the language of development, and the new kind of extractive regimes in natural resources (for example), seems to further dispossession.

This obviously is not what we seek, but it is the dominant paradigm of exchange in the new language of globalization. The text then, Soekarno’s speech, brings one thing: that Soekarno introduced and inspired me in what I call 

“decolonizing unequal global paradigm”, which implies the decolonizing method in engagement and exchange. 

In using this term, I borrow what Walter Mignolo offers in terms of the decolonization of knowledge. He suggests that “decolonization” during the Cold War (e.g., the struggle for decolonization in Asia and Africa) and the meaning of decoloniality today is different. During the Cold War, decolonization referred to national indigenous struggles to expel the colonizer from their territory and build their own nation-state. It became also a project of states that gained independence. The Bandung Conference of 1955 was that moment when modern/colonial nation-state building was in process, in making. A moment where the Indonesia process was highlight and disrupted by massacres as the cold war policy of the International affected tremendously both citizenship building and agricultural sustainability. India and Indonesia were already liberated, but Algeria and Nigeria, for example, attained independence after the Bandung Conference, in 1962 and 1960 respectively.[4]

In thinking about this decolonization I see a journey of thinking, a separation from dominate order, a resistance and rebuilding of strength, or a revisitation of the relationship with equal rights as a form of an exchange. Decolonization as Soekarno offers also deals with producing a “counter narrative,” a claim that the right to determine dignity because, as some scholars have argued, “colonialism did not end with formal independence”[5]

I want to begin by referring to the specific text that I have to chosen to play in my imagination. I place this archival text differently within the historicity of the event, as a form of inspiration and a dream. This text, which profoundly grounds my thoughts, is to Soekarno’s speech “Let a New Asia and a New Africa Be Born”. He narrates: 

“We are often told ‘colonialism is dead’. Let us not to be deceived or even soothed by that. I say to you, colonialism is not yet dead. How can we say it is dead, so long as vast areas of Asia and Africa are unfree?

And I beg of you, do not think of colonialism only in the classic form which we of Indonesia, and our brothers in different parts of Asia and Africa, knew. Colonialism has also its modern dress, in the form of economic control, intellectual control, actual physical control by a small but alien community within a nation. It is a skillful and determined enemy, and it appears in many guises. It does not give up its loot easily. Wherever, whenever and however it appears, colonialism is an evil thing, and one which must be eradicated from the earth.”

This text was a magnificently crafted oration, both ideologically and strategically, that opened the Asia-Africa Conference on April 18, 1955, and now I am referring to it as an inspiration for the strength inherent in claiming and in forming resistance to what Judith Butler and Athena Athanasiou suggest in the notion of an act as affected by injustice.[6] But also beyond that, it is a form of manifesto. A condemnation. Not as a form that can be an “in” and “out” identity, rather as a continuation of dedication. It is an expression of alliances through detestation.

 

(show a piece of Soekarno Speech in Youtube - 2 minutes and 22 seconds)

President Sukarno Opening Speech at, the Bandung Conference, 1955, Indonesia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRIch247vb8

 

This is a form of “departure,” taking the form of “ruin” or “detestation,” in which puts the language of marginality to a form of resistance and an imagination of alliances.[7] Many scholars who study Soekarno’s political biography have argued that the formation of his anti-colonialism gesture and his thinking on decolonization/freedom (kemerdekaan) was built on his foundational defense speech Indonesia Accuses! against his arrest at the colonial court, because it feared that PNI (the National Political Party under Soekarno), which had became larger, was a threat to the establishment of colonial order.[8] This “fear” anxiety and relationship among the dominant and colonized bridges and continues at this point that I am speaking, although we are all aware of different kinds of mechanisms, as almost all that were colonized are already independent. Yet, as we witness, this independence is not a guarantee of freedom from colonialism. 

 

 

II. Ecological Crisis: A New Form of Empire

To respond to the presence of the Asean Free Trade Area (AFTA)/Asean Economic Community’s (AEC)[9] plan and the critique of its existence, I will dedicate this following section’s focus to land dispossession and global design in order to voice anxiety, or rather as a form of reminder, for us to critically engage with the so-called global paradigm network. This condition of injustice, characterized by discriminatory laws and lack of access for peasants and the poor to their sustained livelihood, has been an illness, a chronic disease, caused by inhuman action resulting from the collaboration between the local and the global. It is an impact that creates real conditions, and it is a new form of colonialism. This internationalism that appears in different formations of oppression, is the language—the co-opted language of so-called development—that I would like to explore today.

The AEC plan will be implemented in December of 2015, and although many are pessimistic in regards to the launch, the AEC envisions the following key characteristics: (a) a single market and production base, (b) a highly competitive economic region, (c) a region of equitable economic development, and (d) a region fully integrated into the global economy. This plan is furthering the struggle that I have mentioned, and exists as a kind of community based impact, a collective suffering because of peasants’ vanishing access to their land.

Specific examples for this are land grabbing and systematic agrarian conflicts that impact a community where the license (ijin) is released by state agencies (including through offices under the Ministry of Forestry, the National Land Agency, or the Ministry of Mining and Energy) for the right to the use of land or forest areas for mining, plantation, or forestry projects. This kind of license is the base for many corporations to force people out, creating dispossession and displacement. This specific condition is also affected by the policy (created by a new measurement of “democracy”) known as decentralization. This decentralization has resulted in provincial and districts leaders/institutions also being able to issue land/forest/mining license to exploit use the land or territory, and this license (ijin)in public knowledge often comes to be a part of the exchange cost during elections. I argue this process of licensing is made possible by the conception of “state property” a continuation of colonial law and practice of state territorialization. The colonial and post-independence state territorialization are similar.

a)   The State claims all lands considered ‘no body’s land’ as state property.

b)   The establishment of the boundaries of land declared as state property in order to  assert state’s control over land, resource and territory.

c)   The categorization of the state property based of their functions, for example to divide and allocate the use of forest territory into productive forests, conservation forests, convertible forests, etc.

d)   The exercise of bureaucratic power and authority to produce licenses for corporate entities for mining, forestry or plantation projects, etc.

e)   The exercise of State penal power to criminalizes the existing peoples’ access to their land, resource and territories in the area claimed as state property, or those which already under the control of corporate entities.

 

The mechanics of land grabbing are simple. People’s lands, firstly, are categorized as state land, and through this categorization ministers, governors, or district heads deploy their legal authority to allocate the land for business entities through license (ijin). When the license holder decides to work on the ground, by the help of bureaucracy and police officers, or sometime military officers, they exclude forcefully people’s actual access to the land. Then, in its turn they start to change the land use to produce global commodity through a capitalistic mode of production.

This particular mechanism, that allows central and local governments to issue licenses, has resulted in a speeding up of productivity in the economic sense, as the licensing project provides global access to maximize production, which is itself a commodification. It is very clear that the effect is degradation of livelihood itself for the particular region, and here we are clearly seeing a mapping where the people themselves have to face a scarcity of the particular item being produced and reproduced. Because of this web of need, much infrastructure is also prepared to refine the process of production. Therefore many roads, airports and transportation systems have been built to accommodate the project. This infrastructure also requires space/place, and therefore furthers the displacement operating on the peasants side; the people who surround these natural resources are being pushed farther away. Currently, this phenomenon reaches the permanent outcome of loss of access to their land, but at the same time it promotes a different kind of concern in the agrarian politics of the 21^st century that often has nothing to do with the complicated survival method and pressures at the global south; since the disruption of that particular agrarian concern was initiated during colonial times and continues in the post-colonial context. This new kind of colonialism is the form of capitalism with massacres where the same colonized space that has been free/independent was restructured through the language of neoliberal development. 

Thus, it is the emergence of new internationalism and deterritorialization that we should critically engage with how to face its consequences, included to the so-called “deagrarization”. Let say, the national agricultural census of 2013 shows that the total number of agricultural households decreased dramatically in ten years.   In 2013, the total number of agricultural households was 26,13 million. There are about 5 million differences compared to the result of national agricultural census of 2003.  In rhetorical expression, I will say that in ten years (since 2003 to 2013) Indonesia lost one agricultural household for every minute. On the other hand, agricultural corporate entities grow exponentially. 

Many peasant families in Indonesia who depend on this kind of resource (agricultural as a source of income) have been displaced and can no longer provide themselves sustainable income. This occurrence actively creates massive numbers of poor citizens. These poor citizens then become the lowest rank in society. Further, the villagers that used to independently own their land have suddenly become cheap labor, the so-called “surplus population”.  

Here I argue that the creation of space for such collaborative modes, which in this case is the dispossession, displacement and furthering of mechanisms of oppression, creates a specific set of machines I call “killing through policy,” while the new kind of racism, as Soekarno suggests, is found in the formation of cheap labor for the new corporate projects.

This phenomenon, where many peasants have been made dead, the change in status from land owner to an unskilled labor force, and the creation of the poor are on the rise because of the changing of infrastructure that is strongly attached to the genealogy of the colonizing machine. Further, the modern notion of creation through urbanism is empirically similar to what has been mentioned as the death of peasantry by Hobsbawm in his writing:  Age of Extremes, the Short Twentieth Century (1994). Also, as suggested by Philip McMichael (2012) in his entry “Depeasantization” in The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization, the signal of the macro identity is the death of the peasant in the creation of marginality through spatial conditions such as the village versus the city. 

 

Closing Notes

In closing my presentation today, I would like to return to the question of why then we, as a society located in multiple facets of differently recognized historicity of oppression, with visible and invisible tensions, cannot simply just embrace the idea of liberal and neoliberal inclusivity, of “flat” similar space, and of modern civility. In focusing on the Indonesian case, on Soekarno’s dream when he gave his speech offering that freedom is a bridge; as he said, crossing that bridge is where our continuing to be present as a new kind of citizenship (in this global space) will emerge. Therefore my question to you is, when systematic discrimination operates like this, destroying the most fundamental coexistence of humans—as in this new form of colonialism—how then can solidarity, as a form of engagement with our different geographical historicities, even be imagined as a dialectic of possibility.

Thank you. 

Minneapolis, February 17, 2015.

 

 

---

[1] The following is the quotation from Sukarno’s Opening Speech for the Bandung Conference: “All of us, I am certain, are united by more important things than those which superficially divide us. We are united, for instance, by a common detestation of colonialism in whatever form it appears. We are united by a common detestation of racialism. And we are united by a common determination to preserve and stabilise peace in the world.”

[2] Edward Said (1977) Orientalism. London: Penguin. 

[3] Shaden Tageldin, Disarming Words. Empire and the Seductions of Translation in Egypt, 2011.

[4] “Decolonial Options an Artistic/ AestheSic  Entanglement: An Interview with Walter Mignolo”, in Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society, Vol 3. No 1, 2014, PP. 196-212.).

[5] Savigliano, Marta E. (1995) Tanggo and Political Economy of Passion. Colorado: West View Press.

[6] Butler, Judith and Athena Athanasiou (2013) Dispossesion: the Performative in the Political. Cambridge: Polity Press.

[7] Hakim Abderrezak in “Burning the Sea: Clandestine Migration Across the Strait of Gibraltar in Francophone Moroccan “Illiterature” Contemporary French and Francophone Studies

Volume 13, Issue 4, 2009

 

[8] See Paget, Roger K (Ed) (1975). Indonesia accuses!: Soekarno's defence oration in the political trial of 1930. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[9] The AFTA was agreement was signed on 28 January 1992 in Singapore by six members countries of Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), i..e. Thailand, Singapore,  Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei. Now AFTA comprises the ten countries of ASEAN (plus Vietnam, Laos and Myanmar). The ASEAN Leaders adopted the ASEAN Economic Blueprint at the 13th ASEAN Summit on 20 November 2007 to serve as a coherent master plan guiding the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community 2015. See: the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint,http://www.asean.org/archive/5187-10.pdf (last accesses on February 15, 2015)

MP3EI : Cerita (Si)Apa? Mengapa Sekarang?

Noer Fauzi Rachman dan Dian Yanuardy (2014) "MP3EI : Cerita (Si)Apa? Mengapa Sekarang?", dimuat dalam  Landreform, Jurnal Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria, Edisi I/2014. halaman 36-60. Dalam versi berbeda, dan substansi sama dimuat dalam Noer Fauzi Rachman dan Dian Yanuardy (2014) “Dapatkah Indonesia Bebas dari Kutukan Kolonial, Refleksi Kritis atas MP3EI”. Mamangan, Jurnal Ilmu Sosial. Co-authored with Dian Januardi. Program Studi Pendidikan Sosiologi. STKIP-PGRI. Sumatera Barat. Pp. 7-14.  http://ejournal.stkip-pgri-sumbar.ac.id/index.php/jurnal-mamangan/article/view/94 (last accessed at 12/12/2018). Beberapa data dalam tulisan ini dikontribusikan oleh Didi Novrian dan Swanvri.  

Naskah ini asalnya merupakan bagian dari laporan studi kolaboratif yang diselenggarakan Sajogyo Institute, 2013-2014 “Proses-proses Kebijakan dan Konsekuensi MP3EI”, dengan dukungan pembiayaan oleh Samdhana Institute. Studi kolaboratif yang mengapresiasi dan mengkritik rancangan dan implementasi MP3EI sebagai Master Plan untuk mereorganisasi ruang bagi perluasan investasi dan pasar di Asia melalui pembangunan proyek-proyek infrastruktur raksasa.  Laporan studi itu berupa buku: Noer Fauzi Rachman dan Dian Januardi (eds). 2014. MP3EI. Master Plan Percepatan dan Perluasan Krisis Sosial Ekologi Indonesia. Bogor: Sajogyo Institute, dan bisa sepenuhnya diunduh di https://pppm.stpn.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/MP3EI_Masterplan-Percepatan-Kerusakan-Ekologi.pdf dan bisa juga di 

https://ia903406.us.archive.org/26/items/pdfy-lidU-59a3-sir5nT/MP3EI-Master%20Plan%20Percepatan%20%26%20Perluasan%20Krisis%20Sosial-Ekologis%20Indonesia.pdf  

 

Masyarakat Hukum Adat adalah Penyandang Hak, Subjek Hukum, dan Pemilik Wilayah Adatnya: Memahami Secara Konstektual Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia atas perkara nomor 35/PU-X/2012

Noer Fauzi Rachman and Mia Siscawati (2014)  Masyarakat Hukum Adat adalah Penyandang Hak, Subjek Hukum, dan Pemilik Wilayah Adatnya. Memahami Secara Konstektual Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia atas perkara nomor 35/PU-X/2012. Yogayakarta: Insist Press. 

Untuk unduh betas dan sepenuhnya: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QZtDSwaf-2ZPozRguoxhua-bILijHfVA/view?usp=sharing

 “ (...) jika dikaitkan dengan Pasal 33 ayat (3) UUD 1945 menjadi tugas negara bagaimana pengusahaan sumberdaya alam yakni bumi, air dan kekayaan alam yang terkandung di dalamnya dimanfaatkan untuk sebesar-besar kemakmuran rakyat (secara adil dan merata). Hal itu tidak dapat dicapai dengan menegakkan hukum semata karena ternyata hukum yang berkenaan dengan sumberdaya alam mengandung cacat yang, jika ditegakkan, justru akan menimbulkan ketidakadilan sosial. Penegakan hukum sumberdaya alam yang tidak adil akan mengancam eksistensi masyarakat hukum adat yang sangat rentan penggusuran oleh mereka yang mengatasnamakan atau ijin dari negara.”

—Achmad Sodiki (2012)—

Power to Make Land Dispossession Acceptable: A Policy Discourse Analysis of the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE), Papua, Indonesia

Takeshi Ito, Noer Fauzi Rachman and Laksmi A. Savitri (2014) “Power to Make Land Dispossession Acceptable: A Policy Discourse Analysis of the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE), Papua, Indonesia.” Co-authored with Takeshi Ito, and Laksmi Savitri. Journal of Peasant Studies 41(1):29-50.  

For full and free access: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03066150.2013.873029?casa_token=5QfU6emMfpAAAAAA:whXkpcW930OdulOSBjLhdGiQFnqqAl96XOWmdeC-tduoTGu2-Eq9ygxv2ScjinrGeVwuzuwvMQ 

Abstract

The Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE) in Papua, Indonesia, is a state-led mega-project to transform local agriculture through large-scale corporate investment in food crops and biofuels for foreign markets. The project has led to extensive land dispossession, accompanied by devastating social and ecological impacts. This contribution analyzes how discourse regarding food and energy crises has been employed to release land from customary tenure to a coalition of state, corporate and local elite actors. The interests of these actors have converged on the state-led mega-project to transform local agriculture through large-scale corporate investment in food crops and biofuels in the name of national food security. 

Keywords: state; capital; agrarian environments; land grab; discourse analysis; food and energy estate; Indonesia

 

1. Introduction

The Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE) was officially launched by Indonesia’s Ministry of Agriculture on 11 August 2010. According to the Grand Design created by the national government (GoI 2010), this large-scale development of corporate agriculture aims to produce food crops and biofuels for domestic and international markets.[1] The project goals are spectacular and the scale of planned transformation is massive. The MIFEE is expected to increase the production of rice by 1.95 million tons, maize by 2.02 million tons, soybeans by 167 thousand tons, cattle by 64 thousand head, sugar by 2.5 million tons and crude palm oil by 937 thousand tons, thereby reducing net food imports by US$ 514 million (GoI 2010, 39). According to government estimates, the project will also create 44,900 jobs in the agricultural sector for both indigenous people and trans-migrants and increase income by up to US$ 13,500 per household per year (GoI 2010, 39).[2]

The creation of the food estate in Merauke is an integral part of the comprehensive national economic development plan unveiled by President Yudohyono’s administration in May 2011.[3] The Master Plan for Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia Economic Development (known by the Indonesian acronym MP3EI) sees Indonesia becoming one of the 10 major economies in the world by 2025. The master plan divides the Indonesian archipelago into six economic corridors (Figure 1), which are identified as economic centers and are expected to boost economic development by investing 4012 trillion rupiah (US$ 455 billion) in eight strategic programs and 22 main economic activities throughout the country (GoI 2011, 49).[4] Each economic corridor has a specific develop-ment theme based on its potential (Table 1). With the realization of these potentials, Indo-nesia ‘aims to position itself as one of the world’s main food suppliers, as a processing center for agricultural, fishery, and natural resources, as well as a center for global logistics by 2025 or earlier’ (GoI 2011, 16).

Recently, foreign investors have rushed to buy or lease large tracts of land in sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America for the production of food crops and bio-fuels for foreign markets in anticipation of food and energy crises (GRAIN 2008, Cotula et al. 2009, Von Braun and Meinzen-Dick 2009, Zoomers 2010, World Bank 2010, Borras and Franco 2011, Deininger 2011, De Schutter 2011, Hall 2011,Li2011). An emer-ging literature on the so-called land grab has focused primarily on the nature of large-scale land acquisitions as a contemporary enclosure of land for capital accumulation taking place between finance-rich countries of the North and resource-rich countries of the South with multinational corporations and private investor groups as the main actors. This focus, however, obscures a salient feature of the land grab in the era of neoliberal globalization: the role of state actors and their alliances with corporations in creating incentives for agri-cultural investments through regulations, laws and policies (Cotula 2012, White et al. 2012, Wolford et al. 2013).[5]

In this contribution, we argue that while the emerging picture suggests that multina-tional corporations and private investor groups are the primary actors in the global land grab, such private actors are often backed by legal and material support from national and local governments and corporations (Borras and Franco 2011, Cotula et al. 2011, Anseeuw et al. 2012). Besides the use of violence, what is the policy process through which such land dispossession from local smallholders, customary tenure and protected forests is made acceptable? There is an urgent need for detailed research documenting the local processes of the global land grab. This paper addresses this need by focusing on the coalition of interests between various actors including the state, corporate actors and local elites in the case of agricultural expansion in Merauke, a district in Papua pro-vince, Indonesia, bordering Papua New Guinea. A critical analysis shows that national and local political elites in alliance with multinational and Indonesian corporate actors have carefully framed the global food and energy crises into a national development scheme involving large-scale land dispossession.

The frontier is seen as a metaphor for national development (Fold and Hirsch 2009, Hirsch 2009, McCarthy and Cramb 2009), presenting opportunities and enormous potential for the state and capital to expand their territory, control resources and deepen production relations. To agricultural developers, Merauke presents an ideal space for agricultural expansion, with 2.5 million ha of potential arable land, flat terrain and a suitable agro-climate. Yet, often ignored is the fact that the spectacular visions of agricultural develop-ment in Merauke are to occur on land occupied and used by the Malind people and other local/indigenous peoples (Figure 2). One of the main focuses of this contribution is on a question raised by Borras et al.(2011, 212) in the Global Land Grabbing Forum of the Journal of Peasant Studies (Vol. 38, No. 2): ‘How are these [land] deals discursively justified and legitimized, and in turn, challenged and opposed?’

Central to this question, we argue, is the discourse of food security and agricultural development employed by the state in alliance with corporate actors and local elites, that is, the capability of both public and private actors to connect food and energy crises to the concept of a food and energy estate. In this process, the spectacular vision of the MIFEE as an integral part of the Master Plan for national development has been presented in a manner that overshadows the socially unacceptable outcome of land dispossession. On the heels of the food and energy crises of 2007–2008, President Yudhoyono framed the crises as an agribusiness opportunity under the slogan ‘feeding Indonesia, feeding the world’, which was later fully embraced by the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce (KADIN).[6]

The remainder of this contribution is divided into three main parts. Section 2 employs discourse analysis in examining a coalition of interests among various actors including the state, corporate actors and local elites in the policy process, culminating in land disposses-sion from local smallholders and losses of customary tenure and protected forests in Merauke. It details the policy processes leading to the creation of the MIFEE, including the ways in which the concepts of the corporate agricultural estate and the discourse of food and energy crises have been deployed to make land dispossession acceptable, and the ways in which the large tracts of land have been allocated to corporations. Section 3 examines the ways in which the social and ecological impacts of the MIFEE have prompted local, national and transnational activists to launch counter-hegemonic movements, which have delayed the process of land acquisitions and the achievement of the spectacular goals of the MIFEE. In the conclusion, we argue that the MIFEE case illuminates the ways in which land dispossession was justified and legalized by a coalition of various actors –the state, corporate actors and local elites. Through the discourse of the food and energy crises, the interests of these actors converged on the state-led mega-project to transform local agriculture through large-scale corporate investment in food crops and biofuels in the name of food security for national development (Figure 3).

 

---

[1] The total targeted area of the MIFEE is 1,282,833 ha, which is expected to be developed in three stages (423,251.3 ha in 2010–2014, 632,504.8 ha in 2015–2019 and 227,076.9 ha in 2020–2030)(BKPRN 2010, 10, GoI 2010, 36).

[2] Currently, Papua province is the least developed of Indonesia’s 33 provinces. The 2009 Human Development Index values for Papua and West Papua were 64.53 and 68.58, which rank them 33rd and 30th, respectively, among the 33 provinces in Indonesia (Statistics Indonesia 2011).

[3] In September 2011, in order to accelerate the implementation of development in Papua, the national government issued Presidential Decree No. 66, creating the Unit for the Acceleration of Development in Papua and West Papua (known by the Indonesian acronym UP4B) (Down to Earth 2012, ICTJ-ELHSAM 2012). ICTJ-ELHSAM (2012) reports that the national government sees its support for development in Papua as a way of resolving the long-standing political problems of conflicts between Jakarta and Papua, including the Free Papua Movement (known by the Indonesian acronym OPM).

[4] The expected investment in the Papua-Kepulauan Maluku economic corridor is 622 trillion rupiah (US$ 69 billion) or 15 percent of the total expected investment for the entire project.[5] The active role of the state in large-scale land acquisitions represents a contradiction to the free market rhetoric of neoliberal globalization. As Philip McMichael suggests, the global land grab is understood not as a contemporary enclosure for capital accumulation but as ‘are flex of changing conditions of accumulation’, giving rise to a reordering of international food production, circulation and consumption relations including a relocation of agro-industry from North to South (McMichael 2012, 681–2). In this context, another feature, not examined here, is a relatively new trend of regionalism, i.e. agricultural investments by corporations from emerging economies such as China, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam (Dauvergne and Neville 2009, Ravanera and Gorra 2011, Anseeuw et al. 2012).

[6] Under the public and private partnership, Indonesia plans to be a major global food producer and to raise at least US$ 101.5 billion in the 2010–2014 period from the production of 15 food commodities (Maulia 2010). Ten of the 15 food commodities are identified as ‘strategic’ and ‘key’ commodities: rice, corn, sugar, soybeans, palm oil, tea, coffee, cocoa, tuna and shrimp.

 

Masyarakat Hukum Adat Adalah Bukan Penyandang Hak, Bukan Subjek Hukum, dan Bukan Pemilik Wilayah Adatnya

Noer Fauzi Rachman

Wacana, Jurnal Transformasi Sosial, Nomor 33, Tahun XVI, 2014 | Halaman 25-48. Untuk artikel lengkap bisa diunduh bebas sepenuhnya dari:  https://www.aman.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Wacana-_33.pdf 

Pengantar

 

            Sejak 16 Mei 2013, hutan adat bukan lagi bagian dari hutan negara yang berada di bawah penguasaan Kementerian Kehutanan; hutan adat adalah hutan yang berada dalam wilayah masyarakat hukum adat. Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) memutuskan demikian dalam perkara Nomor 35/PUU-X/20121 (selanjutnya disebut Putusan MK 35) berkenaan dengan gugatan Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN) bersama dua anggotanya, yakni kesatuan masyarakat hukum adat Kenegerian Kuntu dan kesatuan masyarakat hukum adat Kasepuhan Cisitu. Mereka memohon MK menguji konstitusionalitas Pasal 1 angka 6 dan beberapa pasal lainnya dalam Undang-Undang (UU) Nomor 41 Tahun 1999 tentang Kehutanan. 

            Naskah ini bermaksud mengapresiasi Putusan MK 35. Bagian awal naskah ini akan mengurai terlebih dahulu secara ringkas isi Putusan MK 35, lalu akan disajikan makna penegasan norma konstitusional dalam putusan itu, terutama berkenaan dengan perjuangan agraria yang dilansir oleh AMAN. Selanjutnya akan disajikan tanggapan awal dari berbagai pihak, di antaranya Presiden Republik Indonesia, Badan Pertanahan Nasional, Kementerian Kehutanan, dan AMAN sendiri beserta para pendukungnya mengenai Putusan MK 35. Di bagian penutup, penulis akan menyajikan catatan refleksi.