Browse
Introduction
The concepts of “participation” and “collaboration” are getting more and more popular in contemporary art. In the context of Malaysia, the two concepts are embodied in a traditional practice called “gotong-royong”. The literal meaning of gotong-royong is several people carrying things together, and the extended meaning is mutual cooperation under common interests. Such practice has a long history in the Malay Archipelago, but it has gradually declined with the influence of modern development.
However, with the development of civil movements in Malaysia, gotong-royong has gradually appeared in some self-organized artistic actions and community movements in recent years. Such applications are the recalling of inheritance from the past, as well as a new interpretation in contemporary context. By reviewing the historical trajectory of gotong-royong, this article explores the political agency it constructs, as well as the power relations lie behind the edification.
What is Gotong-Royong?
Gotong-royong has a long history in the Malay Archipelago. Its practice can be traced back to the time of Indianized kingdoms Mataram Kuno (c.800 – c.1100) and Majapahit (1293 – c.1950) in Java (Muryanti 2014:66). However, the term only appeared in written work in the 1920s by a Dutch scholar on agriculture. Prior to this, it had never appeared in any old literature or annals (Kobayashi 2007: 9). According to the research of anthropologist John Bowen, the word gotong-royong is originally derived from Javanese verb “ngotong” and the rhyming word “royong”, which literally means “several people carry things together”, and by extension it means “mutual cooperation for the common good” (1986:546). Besides, the word was not introduced with the definition of “mutual aid” in dictionaries before the 1944 version compiled by the Indonesian Language Committee (Komisi Bahasa Indonesia) (Kobayshi 2007:9). Therefore, gotong-royong is also seen as a recent vintage constructed on the basis of misrecognition of local cultural realities (Bowen 1986:545-546).
Anyway, gotong-royong is common in traditional societies in the Malay Archipelago and is still in practice to some extent in rural areas today. This custom of reciprocity is especially common during the sowing and harvesting peaks, when the countryside needs a lot of manpower, figures with prestige in the village will use gotong-royong as a call to invite villagers, relatives and friends to come and help. In addition, gotong-royong is also seen in the preparation of festive ceremonies, such as weddings, circumcisions, funerals, as well as tomb sweeping and banquet preparations. It is worth noting that the reciprocal behavior is not limited to blood ties, but is maintained by the villagers’ sense of belonging and initiative. When the labor is done, the farm owner or the host usually provides food, crops or entertainment as a token of appreciation, but no monetary form of remuneration was involved, and such exchange does not involve any contractual relations (Bowen 1986:545; Muryanti 2014:66-67).
Thus, as Indonesian anthropologist Koentjaraningrat puts it, gotong-royong is given the meaning of cooperation within a community, where it is usually called “from a spontaneous attitude … [and] a desire to serve the common good” (2009:13). American anthropologist Clifford Geertz describes that such integrative ties are not interconnected via ideological like-mindedness, more often they are coupled with geographical proximity instead (1965:148). For villagers who usually lack social capital, they have to consider that their contribution will bring returns in the future, when they are in need someday they could seek for corresponding help. Therefore, Bowen explains that gotong-royong is more common in farmers’ communities and rural societies because there are unspoken “obligations of the individual toward the community, the propriety of power, and the relation of state authority to traditional social and political structures” (1986:545). This echoes another Indonesian scholar, Muryanti, who pointed out the difference between gotong-royong and “tolong-menolong” (helping each other). She believes that the former is more motivated for the common good while tolong-menolong directs to a more personal tendency (2014:64).
Some believe Islamic teachings have an important role in promoting the reciprocity of gotong-royong (Muryanti 2014). The term gotong-royong is, in a broad sense, a Malay word, but its application is not limited to Muslim or Malay community. In fact, gotong-royong is widely adopted by the diverse ethnic groups in the Malay Archipelago, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, especially in the rural areas across the region prior to the age of urbanization (Chia 2013). In short, although gotong-royong has a fairly broad range of references, it is generally understood to be a practice of reciprocity derived from the tradition of communitarianism.
Obligation or Coercion? The Various Types of Gotong-Royong
From his field research, Koentjaraningrat categorized gotong-royong into seven types according to motivation of the villagers and attitudes, the way they participated, the relationships between the participants and the organizer, as well as the type of return they get after (Koentjaraningrat 2009:43). It is worth mentioning that each gotong-royong has its own name in the local language, such as tetulung, gugur gunung, ndjurung, rerukunan, sambatan, grojogan and keringan etc.,(註2) which means that each reciprocity practice has nuances for the locals, even though they are generally referred to as gotong-royong.
Bowen sorts out the complex reciprocity practices into three categories: (1) equivalent labor exchanges between individuals; (2) reciprocal built upon obligations to the family or community; (3) mobilized labor subordinated to political authorities (1986: 547-548). Here, the first and second categories are more out of the will of the individual and exist in the form of reciprocity; however, the third category does not come from spontaneity, but a slogan of those in power to mobilize the people. For example, it appears as assistance when it is contributed, such as toward the repair of an irrigation system, but it begins to resemble corvée when it is commanded by a local official for the construction of a district road (1985:548).
On the other hand, Japanese sociologist Kazuo Kobayashi borrowed Eric Hobsbawm’s “invented tradition” to illustrate how gotong-royong can be characterized and institutionalized by authorities so as to continually support their political regimes and legitimate their governance (2007). In brief, when gotong-royong is carried out at the local level in the form of spontaneous organization, its power relations are relatively simple; but when it becomes a top-down policy or mandatory directive, it is reduced to a disguised forced labor. The line that draws between assistance and corvée can, therefore, be understood as the will for gotong-royong, the means of production as well as the conflict of interests.
Gotong-Royong Under the Context of Colonialism
In the village community of Indonesia, many community facilities are built collectively by villagers, such as repairing public infrastructure, or building churches and schools. This form of gotong-royong, also known as “kerdja bakti” (volunteer work), was used by local leaders and popularized during the Dutch colonial and Japanese occupation periods (Koentjaraningrat 1967:395).
Between 1830 and 1870, the Dutch East India Company introduced the Culture System under the name kerdja bakti (community service), forcing farmers who owed land taxes to the Dutch government to switch to cash crops, which were then forced to sell at low prices to the Netherlands Trading Company (Nederlandsche Handel-Maatchaappij) for export trade. In this way, ordinary farmers were involved in the chain of production and served the stakeholder. There were possible times when the villagers got monetary funds or the infrastructure fixed as a token of exchange, yet the remuneration was usually of no significance to the locals (Geertz 1965:46).
In March 1942, when the Japanese occupied Java, they inherited the administrative system of the Dutch government. At that time, Indonesia was an important country in producing food at the international level. Soon after the Japanese occupation, Indonesia’s food production fell sharply, and the food shortage was worrying. The Japanese decided to implement the Tonarigumi System, in order to manage and implement central policy directives through the establishment of grassroots organizations, thereby achieving the goal of increasing food production and controlling food consumption (Kobayashi 2007).
We tend to ask what motivates the devotion of time and labor of the villagers to contribute to build public facilities and even work for the colonial regime. Besides attributing it to the obligation to the community, Koentjaraningrat explains the phenomena by adopting the faith in Indonesian customary law “adat” (Koentjaraningrat 1976:395):
“According to the indegenous adat regulations, villagers have the obligation to render kerdja bakti labor for a certain period, varying between 30 to 60 days, during the year. Thus they may be recruited by the village head for all kinds of community projects and also for routine duties, including services to the village head. Villagers who are under the obligation of kerjda bakti are allotted pieces of land and thus are given a respected status in the community … Also, by a Dutch regulation of 1907, the customary right of villagers to choose their village head was restricted only to those who had participated in kerdja bakti services.”
As mentioned earlier, farmers and villagers with low social capital have to contribute in kerdja bakti, in order to gain recognition, respect and return in other various forms, and to keep themselves attached to the community they belong to. Paradoxically, the policies of forced labor carried out by the Dutch and Japanese colonial regimes not only violated the rights of farmers and villagers, but also deliberately prevented them from participating in the process of decision-making and directed these labor into their own agendas which were not shared by the contributors.
Gotong-Royong after Independence
In leading the country for independence, Indonesian President Sukarno summarized the National Principles Pancasila into gotong-royong, which aims to unite people of different geographical, religious, linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Later in 1957, Sukarno further promoted gotong-royong as the central idea for the Guided Democracy, as he believed liberal democracy and parliamentary system was not what divisive Indonesians needed. He underlined that important decisions were discussed with the guidance of the village head at traditional villages to achieve consensus; such a model can be ported to the cabinet, that is, under the leadership of the president with representatives of various parties. This idea, therefore, gave birth to the People’s Representative Council of Mutual Assistance (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Gotong-Royong).
Other than Sukarno, gotong-royong was also appropriated by other Indonesian politicians. For instance, Mohammad Natsir, in his fifth term as prime minister, repeatedly stressed the importance of gotong-royong in eradicating feudalism and Western imperialism.(註4) Then, Suharto who took over the country in 1967 and announced a military system, performed a nationwide kerdja bakti by mobilizing gotong-royong. More recently in 2001, Megawati Sukarnoputri, the daughter of Sukarno, who was elected to be the fifth President of Indonesia, named her cabinet as the Gotong-Royong Cabinet. These political moves might appear to be open-minded, inclusive, and conducive to the unity of the people and the decentralization of power, but they are not the product of deliberative consensus as how gotong-royong took place at the local level.
The Evolution of Gotong-Royong in Malaysia
Policies derived from gotong-royong does not only exist in Indonesia, its neighboring country Malaysia also has a deteriorated form of it, called the Jabatan Sukarelawan Malaysia, The People’s Volunteer Corps, or better known as RELA (literally means willing). RELA was established during the 1960s state of emergency in Malaysia, the main purpose of which was to guard against communist organizations and allow people to monitor each other for social security. The organization declined with the marginalization of the Malayan Communist Party, but revived after the May 13 Incident in 1969.(註5) Today, the volunteers of RELA are endowed with increasing powers, in addition to having a status similar to the police, some are even armed. Besides receiving free training, uniforms and lodging, volunteers are also paid for their training and operations.(註6) Here, the relationship between the state and the volunteers is reduced to an employment affiliation, which requires a degree of obedience to the former, while the spirit of volunteerism is rarely emphasized.
The widespread use of gotong-royong in Malaysia, especially in urban areas, is inextricably related to the first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman. In 1975, Tunku Abdul Rahman first established the Rukun Tetangga (Principles of the Neighborhood), whose main objective was not to promote mutual aid but particularly to encourage local members to form night patrols to ensure the security of their residential area and functioned as a neighborhood watch back then. As a result, spontaneous self-organized activities were once again turned to institutional impetus.
Today, while gotong-royong is still common in contemporary society, some practices have lost their intrinsic quality. For example, when the government passed the Peraturan-Peraturan Rukun Tetangga (Rukun Tetangga Act)(註7), this spontaneous state of solidarity was transformed into a top-down national policy. Local residents may not have the will to serve their community but were being initiated or forced for a variety of reasons.(註8) In addition, when the government placed high hopes that Rukun Tetangga could provide local security watch, it was established for the purposes of reducing criminal offense while not burdening the cost of state government.(註9)
At present, the public perceives gotong-royong positively in general. In multicultural and religious societies like Indonesia and Malaysia, gotong-royong can be seen as an effective solution for people from different backgrounds to live in harmony. However, if we take a closer look at the power manipulation behind it, we have to admit that gotong-royong has its own limitations too. For instance, although Sukarno succeeded in bringing Indonesia to independence after World War II, his Guided Democracy and other related policies did not address the fundamental differences between the people. His strategies were implemented in a top-down basis, even though it brought about temporary peace, structural conflict within society remained unresolved, and the ensuing upheavals proved its ineffectiveness.(註10)
The idea of Sukarno is similar to what Mahathir announced in the Vision 2020, when he was in office as the fourth prime minister. Mahathir proposed the concept of Bangsa Malaysia (Malaysian Nation), an inclusive policy constructed for a pluralistic society, but he also ignored the deep-seated contradictions between ethnic groups and further reinforced the agenda of ethnic policy. In 2018, Mahathir returned to politics as the seventh prime minister, ironically, ethnic relations in Malaysia have not only not improved but have deteriorated. As mentioned above, we often see gotong-royong used by those in power as a social mobilization to build common values among the people and as a weapon to deal with sensitive issues such as ethnic relations and religion.
In fact, be it Sukarno or Mahathir, one thing is clear among these leaders – to be able to set away clashes and build a stable society, a central thought must be incorporated in uniting the people. The national character building programme is easy and convenient in promoting social participation, however, it could easily cause the situation to turn round sharply, especially when the inherent conflicts and disparities are not confronted, but are made to vanish with unity and harmony.
Coda
Gotong-royong was originally a spontaneous reciprocal custom from the local level, but it was later used by those in power and transformed into various forms. When we look back at the colonial period, colonists used the name gotong-royong to force the implementation of the Culture System and Tonarigumi System in the rural areas of Indonesia as a call for mobilization. Oftentimes, rural peasants had no choice but to comply with such orders or policies.
This reciprocal practice was first used by family elders and village heads to direct manpower towards community-building; later, a set of modern governance methods combined with traditional institutions was developed to promote voluntary contributions from the people. In many cases, those in power converted the mass participation into national interests, but the spirit of mutual assistance and reciprocity is not sufficient to resolve structural contradictions. Moreover, the system was later transformed into a project of social identity building, in which politicians exploited gotong-royong to unite the simple will of the people, which became a shortcut to their goals. In this case, they transformed gotong-royong from spontaneous practices into officially authoritative policies, not to mention the involvement of the remuneration system on an individual basis.
When gotong-royong appears as a slogan in the form of a social mobilization, it is actually important to examine the power operation behind this call: is this simply voluntary participation, for the benefit of the community, or a game for those in power? In addition, although gotong-royong provides a sense of satisfaction of obligations, the inherent contradictions within the community, such as ethnic relations, religious discrimination, and class issues, should not be ignored.
REFERENCE