The idea to build an economic democracy through village red-white cooperative (KDMP) prompted intense debates. On one hand, people view that the program would offer great opportunities to strengthen people’s economy through State supports. On the other hand, there was fear that the approach was too centralistic that it would push aside people’s participation, which was key feature of a cooperative movement.

Such debate was also apparent during online discussion entitled "Quo Vadis Village Red-White Cooperatives" organised by Northern Coast Youth Collective (Kolektif Pemuda Pantura) on Friday (3/7). The discussion presented academics, cooperative activists, and civil society activists who presented different views on the future of Indonesian cooperatives.

Journalist and village democracy activist, Farid Gaban opened the discussion by stating that he never rejected cooperatives. For him, cooperatives were important instruments to strengthen people’s economy. Yet, the success of cooperatives was not dependant on the size of government budget, but rather on how far communities were involved since the planning stage.

Farid reminded that his years of experience managing village funds proved the importance of deliberation. Village funds were symbols of autonomy because the people decided its use and accounted for it openly.

He added whether the same spirit was also present in the development of Village Red-White Cooperative.

"If communities are not involved since the beginning, the sense of ownership on cooperatives would be difficult to nurture," he highlighted.

To Farid, a number of strategic decisions were done at top levels and then handed down without any dialogue process with village communities or cooperative board candidates.

He gave an example of a plan to procure operational vehicle(s) that costs millions. He said that the need for it had to be discussed with the community first. Yet rather than purchasing the vehicle(s), people believed that the budget was more useful to purchase drier for the harvest, post-harvest processing equipment, and simple technology that would increase the added values of rural agricultural produce.

"If such large sum of money is used to buy simple equipment to process local harvest, peasants would feel the direct benefits immediately," he said.

From interviews with a number of village chiefs and cooperative board members, Farid also found that a number of cooperatives already operating could potentially be side-lined by the Village Red-White Cooperatives. Yet, those cooperatives had managed to distribute rice and other key basic necessities to communities, and even became a study focus of a number of districts.

He said that the government should have strengthened the existing cooperatives rather than creating new ones that potentially overlapped with existing ones.

"If those cooperatives that worked well were abandoned, then that would be a great pity. The government should have helped the existing cooperatives to flourish," he said.

Farid believed that the government role was necessary. Yet, that role should have been about cooperative education, regulations that helped cooperatives, and removing obstacles that hindered the growth of existing cooperatives.

He suggested that the government did not rush to build thousands of cooperatives simultaneously.

"Do not build thousands of cooperatives. Building some first as pilot projects. Study what works and what needs to be upgraded," he said.

Despite his criticism, Farid affirmed that what he criticised was not the cooperative as a concept.

"I support cooperative. What I reject is how they build it if it means getting rid of democracy, creativity, and village community participation," he said.

A different view was expressed by Suroto, a cooperative activist who initially criticised the Village Red-White Cooperative. Yet, after observing government policy development, he chose to support it.

To Suroto, Indonesia experienced gaps because political democracy was not accompanied by economic democracy. So, economic power was concentrated in few capital owners.

In such a situation, he believed that the State had to be there to build economic institutions through cooperatives.

He argued that the initial budget allocation for the Village Red-White Cooperatives constituted an asset distribution that never happened in the past in the Indonesian history.

Yet, Suroto said that his support did not mean that he was not critical. He encouraged civil societies to monitor program implementation to ensure that it remained transparent and democratic.

"We should not reject such opportunity as this one. What we need to do is to correct the weaknesses," he said.

The discussion then shifted into more practical matters. Another cooperative activist, Pandu suggested that the underlying issue with the cooperative in Indonesia was the low education level of the people managing it.

He believed that many people understood cooperative only in terms of borrowing money.

He reminded that cooperative had to be built based on common economic interests of the members, not simply be based on its administrative location.

Other participant reminded of the importance of evaluating the experience of Village Cooperative Units in the past. Transparency in the construction of the building, readiness of the location, to types of business that matched village potentials were all important lessons in order to prevent similar problems from happening.

By the end of the discussion, the discussion shifted to the impacts of Village Red-White Cooperatives on small businesses already existing in the community.

A participant reminded that developing cooperatives had to start from local wisdom in each village.

He saw that many villages had top products bet it agricultural produce, fishery or handicraft, but they found it difficult to market the products to other areas.

For that reason, cooperatives would be suited to play that important role as liaison between village producers and broader markets.

"What is most important is how the cooperatives focus on production and marketing of local products. There are many quality village products, but people find it difficult to market them to major cities. That is the role that the government should play," he said.

He also reminded of the potential new competition if the Village Red-White Cooperative functioned as retail shops.

If cooperatives sold essential needs far cheaper, people would certainly shop there. That situation would threaten the sustainability of small businesses/shops that had existed for a long time to sustain people’s livelihood.

"if people can find inexpensive products, they will choose to shop there. The question then is what happens to small shops that already exist?" he asked.

In response, Suroto said that the Village Red-White Cooperatives were not built to shut down people’s shops.

He believed that cooperatives were positioned as trade partners for small businesses. Those small businesses who used to sell subsidised products could join forces with the cooperative networks.

"Cooperatives are not allowed to compete with local community businesses. Local community businesses could in fact become cooperative partners to sell subsidised products and other necessities," he confirmed.

He explained that the main function of Village Red-White Cooperatives was an offtaker of community products. Cooperatives bought local agricultural products, fish products, and handicraft, and link these to wider distribution networks with government supports and parastatal companies.

He said that without State intervention, community bargaining position would be weak vis-à-vis the market.

"If they go on their own, community bargaining power would be weak. But with government assistance in establishing distribution network, local products would have bigger opportunities to reach the market," he said.

Surotowas optimistic that village cooperatives would grow when it they were aligned with people’s interests. He imagined cooperatives not only managed essential needs or saving and loans services, but would become centre for village economic development able to broaden marketing networks to national level.

"If cooperatives grow, it is not impossible that they would have large offices as symbol of people’s economy on par with major companies," he said.

The discussion proceeded for almost three hours and came up without any one important conclusion. Yet, the underlying theme was obvious. All participants agreed that cooperatives were important towards people’s welfare.

The difference lied in the path to be taken. Some participants viewed that State intervention was critical in the momentum to build economic democracy, while others believed that the success of cooperatives would only be achieved through education, people’s initiatives, transparency, and people’s participation since the beginning.

The debate was a reminder that the future of Village Red-White Cooperatives not only depended on the size of the State investment, but also by people’s ability to keep them as people’s movement.

Cooperatives that developed through people’s participation would have stronger survival capacity than government project. (Ast)