Friday, 22 September 2006 @ 2:30pm.
There is never a dull day here. Sometimes the excitement comes in little packages, but yesterday it came in a large one…
Late yesterday afternoon, a little after 3pm, I was in one of the back offices of the Freedom Institute and heard some sounds outside. The secretary and I went out into the driveway to see what the sounds were, but were quickly ushered back into the building. Staff immediately closed the gates as a group of around 50 (maybe more or less; it was hard to tell) students began to protest in front of the building. The police were called and they arrived in less than 15 minutes. The students shouted very loudly, shook the gates, waved blue flags, and demanded to see Pak Rizal, the head of the Freedom Institute. Apparently, they were upset with comments Rizal made on a television news program the night before about the World Bank, IMF, globalization, and the like. They wanted “clarification.” Rizal offered to meet with representatives of the group, which called themselves ISMAD (short for “Indonesian Student Movement Against Debt”). Unfortunately, the students refused to have a discussion. They wanted Rizal to address all of them outside, but of course, this was not a safe option. The group eventually disbanded after about an hour, but claimed to return. I don’t mean to speak too soon, but they have yet to return today.
While I do sympathize with the student protestors’ concerns about debt in developing countries, the role of the World Bank and IMF in the economy, and protecting the poor and minorities, I do not understand why they were not willing to discuss these issues in depth. Why scare staff and researchers with shouting? Why not just join or co-sponsor a dialogue/discussion, which the Freedom Institute has been completely open to and supportive of doing in the past? Sure, the Freedom Institute has its own agenda (e.g., supporting free markets, liberalism, and democracy), but they are open to debating the pros and cons of any particular topic. What’s a bit ironic is that the free library here probably has more books that are anti-globalization, pro-poor, pro-justice, etc. than neoliberal or neoconservative texts! Yes, all institutes have their own biases and positions, but at least in the case of the Freedom Institute they are willing to sit down and talk about such matters in a safe, comfortable environment.
One thing that frustrated me was that I am trying my best to conduct objective, social science research about political participation, but instead of me having the chance to speak with students about their concerns and represent a myriad of voices, I had to stay out of view because no one knew how they would react to my status as an American. I think protests and demonstrations have their merit, but safety cannot be disregarded.
Here are three images that an office staff person took yesterday:
