Terbit pada Bisnis Indonesia
Usaha Kecil & Koperasi
Kamis, 20/09/2001

YOGYAKARTA: Secara konstitusional, ekonomi kerakyatan diperkenalkan sejak diundangkan nya UUD 1945 lebih dari 56 tahun lalu.  Titik tolak yang paling mudah untuk memahami ekonomi kerakyatan adalah  dengan menguraikan makna penggalan kalimat pertama dalam penjelasan Pasal 33 UUD 1945. Sebagaimana dikemukakan oleh penggalan kalimat tersebut, "Dalam Pasal 33  tercantum dasar demokrasi ekonomi, produksi dikerjakan oleh semua untuk  semua di bawah pimpinan atau penilikan anggota-anggota masyarakat."  Dalam penggalan kalimat itu, ungkapan ekonomi kerakyatan memang tidak  digunakan secara eksplisit. Tetapi dengan mengacu pada penggunaan ungkapan kerakyatan sebagaimana digunakan oleh sila keempat Pancasila, akan segera diketahui yang dimaksud dengan ekonomi kerakyatan tidak lain dari demokrasi ekonomi sebagaimana dimaksudkan oleh penjelasan Pasal 33 UUD 1945 tersebut.

Berdasarkan bunyi penggalan kalimat dalam penjelasan Pasal 33 UUD 1945  itu, dapat diketahui secara substansial ekonomi kerakyatan sesungguhnya  mencakup tiga hal berikut:
Pertama, adanya partisipasi penuh seluruh anggota masyarakat dalam proses pembentukan produksi nasional. Partisipasi penuh seluruh masyarakat dalam proses pembentukan produksi nasional ini sangat penting artinya bagi ekonomi kerakyatan.
Dengan cara demikian seluruh masyarakat mendapat bagian dari hasil produksi nasional itu. Sebab itu, sebagaimana ditegaskan oleh Pasal 27UUD 1945, "Tiap-tiap warga negara berhak atas pekerjaan dan penghidupan yang layak bagi kemanusiaan."

Kedua, adanya partisipasi seluruh anggota masyarakat dalam turut menikmati hasil produksi nasional. Artinya, dalam rangka ekonomi kerakyatan, tidak boleh ada satu orang pun yang tidak ikut menikmati hasil produksi  nasional, termasuk fakir miskin dan anak telantar. Hal itu dipertegas oleh Pasal 34 UUD 1945 yang mengatakan, "Fakir miskin dan anak-anak telantar
dipelihara oleh negara."

Ketiga, pembentukan produksi dan pembagian hasil produksi nasional harus berada di bawah pimpinan atau penilikan anggota masyarakat. Artinya, dalam rangka ekonomi kerakyatan, anggota masyarakat tidak boleh hanya menjadi objek. Setiap anggota masyarakat harus diupayakan agar menjadi subjek perekonomian.

Walaupun misalnya kegiatan pembentukan produksi nasional dilakukan oleh para pemodal asing, kegiatan-kegiatan itu harus tetap berada di bawah pengawasan atau pengendalian masyarakat.

Partisipasi masyarakat

Unsur ekonomi kerakyatan yang ketiga itu saya kira perlu digarisbawahi. Sebab unsur ekonomi kerakyatan yang ketiga itulah yang mendasari perlunya partisipasi seluruh anggota masyarakat dalam kepemilikan modal atau faktor produksi nasional, baik dalam bentuk kepemilikan modal material (material capital), modal intelektual (intelectual capital), maupun modal  institusional (institusional capital).

Sebagai konsekuensi dari unsur ekonomi kerakyatan yang ketiga itu, negara harus mengupayakan agar kepemilikan ketiga jenis modal tersebut terdistribusi secara relatif merata di tengah masyarakat. Sehubungan dengan modal material, misalnya, negara tidak hanya wajib mengakui dan melindungi hak kepemilikan setiap anggota masyarakat, tetapi juga wajib memastikan bahwa semua anggota masyarakat turut serta memiliki modal material.

Sehubungan dengan modal intelektual, negara wajib menyelenggarakan pendidikan cuma-cuma bagi seluruh anggota masyarakat. Artinya, dalam rangka ekonomi kerakyatan, pendidikan bukanlah sebuah kegiatan yang dapat dikomersialkan.

Negara tidak mungkin melarang komersialisasi pendidikan oleh pihak swasta, tetapi hal itu harus dilakukan bersamaan dengan disediakannya fasilitas pendidikan bebas biaya oleh sektor negara.

Sementara itu, sehubungan dengan modal institusional, saya kira tidak ada keraguan sedikitpun bahwa negara memang wajib melindungi hak setiap anggota masyarakat untuk berserikat, berkumpul, dan menyatakan pendapat. Hal itu tentu tidak hanya berlaku sehubungan dengan pembentukan serikat-serikat sosial dan politik, tetapi mencakup pula pembentukan serikat-serikat ekonomi. Secara khusus hal itu diatur dalam Pasal 28 UUD 1945.

Bertolak dari uraian tersebut, secara keseluruhan dapat disaksikan bahwa tujuan utama ekonomi kerakyatan pada dasarnya adalah untuk meningkatkan kemampuan masyarakat dalam mengendalikan jalannya roda perekonomian. Artinya, dalam rangka ekonomi kerakyatan, setiap anggota masyarakat harus diupayakan agar menjadi subjek perekonomian. Mereka tidak boleh diperlakukan hanya sebagai objek perekonomian.

Bila tujuan ekonomi kerakyatan itu diuraikan lebih lanjut, maka sasaran pokok ekonomi kerakyatan dalam garis besarnya meliputi lima hal berikut: Pertama, tersedianya peluang kerja dan penghidupan yang layak bagi seluruh anggota masyarakat. Kedua, terselenggaranya sistem jaminan sosial bagi anggota masyarakat yang membutuhkan, khususnya bagi fakir miskin dan anak telantar. Ketiga, terlindungi dan terdistribusinya kepemilikan modal material secara relatif merata di antara anggota masyarakat.Keempat, terselenggaranya pendidikan bebas biaya bagi setiap anggota masyarakat yang memerlukan. Kelima, terjaminnya hak setiap anggota masyarakat untuk mendirikan serikat-serikat ekonomi.

Mendapat perlawanan
Sebagai sebuah paham dan sistem ekonomi yang bermaksud mendemokratisasikan penguasaan modal, tentu sangat wajar bila ekonomi kerakyatan cenderung mendapat perlawanan dari sejumlah kalangan. Bagi para penganut ekonomi neoliberal, gagasan ini tidak hanya dipandang tidak sejalan dengan teori-teori ekonomi yang mereka yakini, tetapi juga cenderung merupakan ancaman terhadap kepentingan-kepentingan pribadi mereka.

Perlawanan terhadap ekonomi kerakyatan itu tentu sah-sah saja. Sebagai sebuah paham dan sistem ekonomi, ekonomi kerakyatan memang tidak membahagiakan semua pihak. Sehubungan dengan itu, mungkin ada baiknya bila di sini dikemukakan secara singkat argumentasi yang melatarbelakangi pentingnya penyelenggaraan demokratisasi modal dalam ekonomi kerakyatan. Selain didasarkan pada motivasi untuk menciptakan keadilan ekonomi, demokratisasi modal merupakan tonggak yang sangat penting bagi ekonomi kerakyatan untuk menjamin terselenggaranya proses demokrasi dalam arti yang sesungguhnya. Dalam pandangan ekonomi kerakyatan, demokrasi politik saja tidak mencukupi bagi rakyat kebanyakan untuk mengendalikan jalannya roda perekonomian. Sebab, sebagaimana berbagai bidang kehidupan lainnya, persaingan politik yang sangat demokratis sekali pun, faktor modal akan tetap memainkan peranan penting dalam mempengaruhi pilihan-pilihan politik masyarakat. Sebagaimana dikemukakan Gramsci, para pemodal besar sesungguhnya tidak hanya cenderung memanfaatkan negara sebagai sarana untuk membela kepentingan-kepentingan mereka.

Melalui kekuatan modal yang mereka miliki, mereka juga cenderung memakai demokrasi sebagai sarana untuk melestarikan posisi dominan yang dimilikinya. Untuk menghadapi kelicikan para pemodal besar tersebut, maka tidak ada pilihan lain bagi rakyat kebanyakan, kecuali dengan mempersenjatai diri mereka dengan modal material yang cukup, modal institusional yang kuat,
dan kemampuan intelektual yang memadai.

Upaya untuk mempersenjatai diri dengan ketiga jenis modal tersebut tentu diperoleh secara cuma-cuma. Ia memerlukan perjuangan. Bertolak dari tujuan dan sasaran ekonomi kerakyatan sebagaimana dikemukakan tersebut, beberapa hal mudah-mudahan kini menjadi lebih
jelas, terutama bagi mereka yang selama ini masih ragu-ragu terhadap prospek ekonomi kerakyatan. Pertama, ekonomi kerakyatan bukan paham dan sistem ekonomi apolitis.
Ekonomi kerakyatan adalah gerakan perlawanan atas kesewenangan penguasa negara dan pemodal besar, termasuk terhadap kekuatan modal internasional dan lembaga keuangan dan perdagangan multilateral seperti Bank Dunia, IMF, dan WTO.

Kedua, jika dilihat dari segi konstituennya, konstituen utama ekonomi kerakyatan adalah kelompok masyarakat yang terpinggirkan dalam sistem ekonomi neoliberal. Dalam garis besarnya mereka terdiri dari kaum buruh, kaum tani, kaum nelayan, kelompok pengusaha kecil, kaum miskin kota, dan kaum mustad'afi.

Ketiga, jika dilihat dari musuh strategisnya, musuh utama ekonomi kerakyatan terdiri dari para penguasa negara yang membela kepentingan para pemodal besar, para pemodal besar domestik, perusahaan-perusahaan transnasional, pemerintah negara-negara industri pemberi utang, dan
lembaga-lembaga keuangan dan perdagangan multilateral yang menjadi kepanjangan tangan neoliberal.

Orientasi ekonomi kerakyatan pada penciptaan kondisi ekonomi dan politik yang demokratis tersebut tentu sangat bertentangan dengan kepentingan kelompok-kelompok masyarakat yang diuntungkan oleh sistem ekonomi neoliberal.

Sebab itu, penolakan mereka terhadap ekonomi kerakyatan bukanlah karena ekonomi kerakyatan tidak ditemukan dalam teksbook, atau karena ekonomi kerakyatan merupakan jargon politik, tetapi karena penyelenggaraan ekonomi kerakyatan dapat menyebabkan berkurangnya dominasi mereka dalam mengendalikan roda perekonomian.

Oleh Revrisond Baswir
Staf pengajar FE-UGM

Keterbelakangan ekonomi rakyat yang meliputi petani kecil, nelayan kecil, pedagang kecil, dan industri kecil, bukanlah sebuah fenomena yang berdiri sendiri. Ia adalah sebuah fenomena yang berdiri paralel dengan tinginya jumlah penduduk miskin, tingginya angka pengangguran, rendahnya tingkat pendidikan sebagian besar angkatan kerja, keterbelakangan daerah perdesaan, dan keterbatasan kemampuan pemerintah daerah dalam mengumpulkan pendapatan asli daerah (PAD). Sebab itu, upaya pengembangan ekonomi rakyat bukanlah sebuah upaya yang dapat dilakukan dengan mengabaikan kondisi struktural penyebab terjadinya kesenjangan
ekonomi dan sosial secara makro. Lebih-lebih dengan hanya membatasi diri pada upaya-upaya pada tingkat mikro tertentu seperti pengembangan sumberdaya manusia, peningkatan kualitas produk, atau penyediaan fasilitas perkreditan. Dengan mengemukakan hal itu tidak berarti bahwa upaya-upaya mikro sama sekali tidak memiliki peranan dalam pengembangan ekonomi rakyat. Walau pun demikian, dua catatan berikut perlu mendapat perhatian. Pertama, sejak semula harus disadari bahwa upaya-upaya mikro tersebut pada dasarnya adalah sebuah upaya yang bersifat menolong. Sebagai sebuah pertolongan, upaya pengembangan ekonomi rakyat melalui upaya-upaya mikro itu membutuhkan pengorbanan pemberi pertolongan yang lebih besar.
Kedua, bila pertolongan yang diterima oleh ekonomi rakyat dari upaya-upaya mikro itu tidak sebanding dengan kekuatan eksploitatif faktor struktural yang menyebabkan terjadinya kesenjangan, maka upaya tersebut akan sangat mudah mengalami proses penihilan. Artinya, hasil-hasil pengembangan ekonomi rakyat tersebut akan sangat mudah untuk dihisap kembali dan disapu bersih oleh faktor struktural penyebab kesenjangan. Sebab itu, sebelum membahas bentuk-bentuk sistem perbankan bagi pengembangan ekonomi rakyat sebagaimana judul tulisan ini, ada baiknya bila kondisi struktural penyebab keterbelakangan ekonomi rakyat dikemukakan secara singkat. Ini terutama diperlukan untuk menghindari terjadinya kegagalan dini serta untuk
mempersiapkan tindakan antisipatif guna menopang proses pengembangan ekonomi
rakyat secara berkesinambungan.

Sebagaimana saya kemukakan dalam kolom minggu lalu (Selasa, 7/11/2000), secara keseluruhan terdapat lima faktor struktural yang menjadi penghalang pengembangan ekonomi rakyat: Pertama, diterapkannya strategi pembangunan neoliberal yang pro pertumbuhan oleh Orde Baru. Kedua, dilakukannya sentralisasi pengelolaan keuangan negara oleh pemerintah pusat. Ketiga, dilakukannya mobilisasi dana masyarakat secara besar-besaran oleh sektor
perbankan. Keempat, meluasnya kolusi antara para birokrat, pengusaha besar, dan para bankir di Indonesia. Dan kelima, dirampasnya hak-hak azasi ekonomi rakyat dengan menggunakan cara-cara kekerasan oleh para pelaku usaha besar. Di bawah himpitan kondisi struktural yang menyesakkan tersebut, manfaat berbagai program kredit bersubsidi sebagaimana selama ini banyak dinikmati oleh para pelaku ekonomi rakyat patut dipertanyakan. Sepintas lalu, kehadiran
berbagai program kredit bersubsidi itu memang menjanjikan. Tetapi dengan memperhatikan kelima faktor struktural tadi, manfaat program-program itu sesungguhnya perlu dicermati lebih jauh.Berdasarkan berbagai studi yang dilakukan oleh BI (lihat Ikhsan, 1994), dampak program kredit bersubsidi secara umum memang cukup positif, khususnya dalam mendorong investasi, pertumbuhan output, dan penciptaan peluang kerja. Tetapi mengingat pembiayaannya dilakukan dengan cara mencetak uang (kredit likuiditas) yang bersifat inflatoar dan mendorong penyalahgunaan kredit, dampak positifnya cenderung berkurang. Pengalaman penyaluran Kredit Usaha Kecil (KUK) adalah contoh yang sangat baik mengenai rendahnya efektifitas program-program kredit bersubsidi itu. Berbagai studi BI mengungkapkan bahwa peran KUK sebagai penyebab timbulnya persoalan kredit bermasalah di sektor perbankan tergolong cukup besar. Pada tahun 1992, misalnya, tingkat kegagalan pengembalian KUK yang berasal dari KLBI rata-rata mencapai 20 persen. Sedangkan kegagalan KUK non KLBI rata-rata hanya mencapai 5
persen. Fakta terakhir itu mengungkapkan secara gamblang bahwa masalah utama usaha-usaha ekonomi rakyat, pada dasarnya tidak dapat hanya dibatasi pada persoalan akses terhadap permodalan. Lebih-lebih hanya pada persoalan akses terhadap penyediaan fasilitas kredit bersubsidi. Sebab itu, dilakukannya sejumlah upaya paralel untuk menanggulangi persoalan yang dihadap oleh usaha-usaha ekonomi rakyat, termasuk upaya-upaya struktural, sangat penting
artinya bagi keberhasilan program perkreditan dalam pengembangan ekonomi rakyat. Sehubungan dengan itu, sebagaimana diamanatkan oleh GBHN, penyelenggaraan sistem ekonomi kerakyatan sebagai alternatif terhadap sistem ekonomi pasar neoliberal, adalah syarat mutlak bagi pengembangan ekonomi rakyat. Sebagai dikemukakan oleh penjelasan pasal 33 UUD 1945, yang dimaksud dengan ekonomi kerakyatan atau demokrasi ekonomi adalah suatu sistem perekonomian yang menjamin dilakukannya "produksi oleh semua, untuk semua, di bawah pimpinan atau penilikan anggota-anggota masyarakat." Prasyarat utama sistem ekonomi kerakyatan adalah dilakukannya demokratisasi modal dalam tiga bidang: modal material, modal intelektual, dan modal institusional. Berdasarkan ketiga prasyarat tersebut, pengembangan sistem perbankan untuk menopang pengembangan ekonomi rakyat, harus secara sadar
diarahkan dengan memposisikan sektor perbankan sebagai agen demokratisasi modal. Artinya, tanggungjawab sektor perbankan tidak hanya terbatas sebagai agen penyalur kredit (modal material). Tetapi harus dilakukan secara bersamaan dengan pengembangan modal intelektual dan modal institusional.

Memperhatikan ketiga syarat sistem ekonomi kerakyatan tersebut, dalam bidang perbankan sesungguhnya terdapat beberapa model yang dapat dijadikan sebagai acuan pengembangan sistem perbankan yang mungkin dapat disebut sebagai sistem perbankan kerakyatan. Yang cukup terkenal di antaranya adalah model Grameen  Bank di Bangladesh. Sebagaimana dikemukakan Suharto (1991), sebagai pengganti kelangkaan agunan yang dialami usaha-usaha ekonomi rakyat, alternatif yang ditawarkan oleh Grameen Bank adalah dengan mengorganisasikan para calon debiturnya melalui pembentukan kelompok atau pusat. Selain berfungsi sebagai pengganti agunan, pengorganisasian para debitur Grameen Bank juga dimaksudkan untuk: (1) menumbuhkan rasa aman dan rasa percaya diri dalam melakukan prakarsa baru; (2) sebagai wahana utama bagi partisipasi para anggotanya dalam kegiatan proyek; (3) sebagai sumber tekanan terhadap anggotanya agar memenuhi kewajibannya terhadap bank, dan untuk mendorong mereka agar memiliki keberanian dalam meninggalkan sikap-sikap tradisional yang tidak diperlukan, serta untuk mencegah perbuatan anti sosial; (4) melalui pembentukan kelompok, terbuka peluang bagi mereka yang lemah untuk mengubah keadaan mereka menjadi kekuatan kolektif.

Sebagai kelengkapan dari pengembangan modal institusional tersebut, Grameen Bank juga menerapkan apa yang disebut sebagai ikrar 16 pasal, yaitu yang ditujukan untuk meningkatkan disiplin, persatuan, kerja keras, kesejahteraan setiap anggota kelompok debitur. Ikrar terhadap 16 pasal itu wajib dilakukan setiap pertemuan pusat (meliputi 5 - 6 kelompok) yang dilakukan setiap minggu. Bahkan, terkait dengan pengembangan modal intelektual, setiap pusat juga dianjurkan mendirikan sekolah. Model lain yang juga dapat dipertimbangkan sebagai pengejawantahan sistem perbankan kerakyatan adalah sistem perbankan bagi hasil (Bank Islam). Prinsip utama sistem perbankan bagi hasil adalah pembagian keuntungan dan resiko secara berkeadilan antara debitur, kreditur, dan penabung. Dengan adanya pembagian keuntungan dan resiko yang seimbang tersebut, diharapkan muncul rasa tanggungjawab bersama dalam penyaluran kredit dan pengelolaan proyek (Siddiqi, 1984). Dibandingkan dengan Grameen Bank, sistem perbankan bagi hasil, setidak-tidaknya sebagaimana diselenggarakan melalui Baitul Mal wa Tamwil (BMT), memang belum bergerak terlalu jauh hingga ke pengorganisasian para debiturnya. Penyebabnya antara lain adalah perbedaan kelompok sasaran. Kelompok sasaran Grameen Bank adalah penduduk miskin di suatu daerah perdesaan tertentu yang membutuhkan uluran tangan secara mendalam. Sedangkan kelompok sasaran BMT pada umumnya adalah usaha-usaha ekonomi rakyat yang tersebar di sekitar daerah perkotaan di seluruh Indonesia. Di luar kedua model tersebut sesungguhnya layak pula dipertimbangkan sistem perkreditan yang diselenggarakan oleh koperasi simpan pinjam (kosipa). Sebagaimana diketahui, pembentukan kosipa mengandung tiga fungsi demokratisasi modal sekaligus, yaitu pemupukan modal material, pembangunan modal institusional, dan secara tidak langsung--melalui kegiatan pelatihan,
peningkatan modal intelektual.

Sayangnya, sejalan dengan terjadinya manipulasi pengembangan koperasi di Indonesia, yaitu dari alat perjuangan ekonomi rakyat menjadi alat kekuasaan, peranan kosipa sebagai model perbankan kerakyatan cenderung mengalami penyimpangan. Kebanyakan kosipa didirikan untuk menampung penyaluran fasilitas perkreditan yang disediakan oleh pemerintah. Dalam perkembangannya, tidak sedikit Kosipa yang beroperasi sebagaimana layaknya rentenir.

Drs. Revrisond Baswir, MBA adalah pemerhati ekonomi-politik UGM dan direktur
IDEA, Yogyakarta

Ramainya perbincangan mengenai ekonomi rakyat dan ekonomi kerakyatan akhir-akhir ini menimbulkan kesan seolah-olah terdapat pendekatan ekonomi baru yang hendak ditawarkan kepada masyarakat. Di satu pihak, berbagai pendekatan ekonomi yang kini dominan cenderung dikesankan sebagai suatu pendekatan yang sangat mementingkan pertumbuhan, terlalu memihak kepada yang kuat, dan kurang peduli terhadap nasib perekonomian rakyat. Sebaliknya, ekonomi rakyat dan ekonomi kerakyatan cenderung dikesankan sebagai suatu pendekatan yang lebih mementingkan pemerataan, memihak kepada yang lemah, dan menentang dominasi
konglomerat. Tapi dengan menelusuri perkembangan pemikiran ekonomi Indonesia pada masa pra kemerdekaan, akan segera diketahui bahwa gagasan tersebut sebenarnya hanyalah sekedar lahir kembali. Ungkapan-ungkapan serupa telah dipakai oleh para pendiri republik ini jauh sebelum Indonesia memproklamirkan kemerdekaannya. Bung Hatta misalnya, telah membuat sebuah artikel dengan judul Ekonomi Rakyat pada tahun 1933 (lihat Hatta, 1954). Bila demikian, faktor apakah sesungguhnya yang telah mendorong mencuatnya kembali gagasan yang berasal dari masa lalu tersebut?

Ekonomi Kerakyatan
Di antara ungkapan-ungkapan tadi, istilah ekonomi kerakyatan paling layak untuk mendapat perhatian. Istilah ini mengandung konotasi adanya suatu pendekatan ekonomi yang berbeda dari pendekatan-pendekatan ekonomi yang selama ini menjadi acuan. Adapun istilah ekonomi rakyat atau perekonomian rakya hanyalah sekedar ungkapan yang berbeda dari hal yang serupa. Keduanya sama-sama mengacu pada suatu sektor perekonomian tertentu yang dihuni oleh massa rakyat. Apakah yang dimaksud dengan ekonomi kerakyatan? Berpedoman pada penggunaan istilah kerakyatan dalam sila keempat Pancasila, makna ungkapan tersebut dapat
dipastikan mengandung unsur demokrasi di dalamnya. Bila kata kerakyatan dalam ungkapan ekonomi kerakyatan itu dicari maknanya sesuai dengan kedudukannya sebagai kata sifat, maka kata lain dari ekonomi kerakyatan sesungguhnya adalah ekonomi (yang) demokratis atau demokrasi ekonomi. Penjabaran lebih lanjut dari ekonomi kerakyatan atau demokrasi ekonomi itu
dapat ditemukan dalam penjelasan Pasal 33 UUD 1945. Salah satu penggalan kalimat dalam penjelasan Pasal 33 berbunyi sebagai berikut: "Dalam pasal 33 tercantum dasar demokrasi ekonomi, produksi dikerjakan oleh semua untuk semua di bawah pimpinan atau penilikan anggota-anggota masyarakat. Kemakmuran masyarakatlah yang diutamakan bukan kemakmuran orang seorang." Berdasarkan penggalan kalimat tersebut, makna ekonomi kerakyatan atau
demokrasi ekonomi dapat dipahami dengan mudah. Ekonomi kerakyatan adalah suatu sistem perekonomian di mana berbagai kegiatan ekonomi diselenggarakan dengan melibatkan partisipasi semua anggota masyarakat, hasilnya dinikmati oleh seluruh anggota masyarakat, sementara penyelenggaraan kegiatan-kegiatan ekonomi itu pun berada di bawah pengendalian atau pengawasan anggota-anggota masyarakat. Bila dikaitkan dengan bunyi Pasal 33 ayat 1 UUD 1945 tadi, sistem perekonomian seperti itulah yang disebut sebagai perekonomian usaha bersama berdasar atas azas kekeluargaan.

Ekonomi Konglomerat dan Birokrat
Dengan bentuk pemahaman seperti itu, latar belakang mencuatnya kepedulian terhadap ekonomi kerakyatan, ekonomi rakyat, dan perekonomian rakyat menjadi mudah diterka. Karena yang diutamakan dalam ekonomi kerakyatan atau demokrasi ekonomi adalah kemakmuran masyarakat, bukan kemakmuran orang seorang, maka mencuatnya pengunaan istilah-istilah itu sulit dipisahkan dari fenomena kesenjangan ekonomi yang kini mewarnai perekonomian Indonesia. Lebih dari itu, karena dalam kesenjangan ekonomi tersebut peranan para konglomerat yang berkolusi dengan para birokrat cenderung sangat dominan, maka reinkarnasi gagasan ekonomi kerakyatan itu sulit dipisahkan dari reaksi terhadap dominasi ekonomi konglomerat yang ditopang oleh ekonomi birokrat tersebut. Konglomerat dan birokrat memang merupakan dua kelompok masyarakat yang saat ini sangat menentukan merah-birunya perekonomian Indonesia. Merekalah yang paling berperan dalam menentukan kegiatan produksi, mereka pula yang
paling banyak menikmati hasil-hasilnya, sementara segala kegiatan yang mereka lakukan sangat sulit dikendalikan oleh masyarakat. Dalam perkembangan terakhir, masyarakat bahkan makin sulit membedakan mana yang konglomerat dan mana yang birokrat, serta siapa yang lebih berkuasa di antara keduanya. Sebagaimana dapat disaksikan dalam perbincangan mengenai
kapitalisme birokrat atau bisnis anak pejabat, para konglomerat dan birokrat itu kini cenderung lebur menjadi satu. Sebagai satu kekuatan, maka konglomerat yang birokrat atau birokrat yang konglomerat itu cenderung menjadi sangat kuat, sehingga sangat sulit untuk dikendalikan oleh rakyat.

Sebagai reaksi terhadap situasi perekonomian yang anti kerakyatan tersebut, maka selain bermaksud menggugat dominasi ekonomi konglomerat beserta aktivitas kolusinya dengan para birokrat, gagasan ekonomi kerakyatan sebenarnya juga bermaksud mempertanyakan kesetiaan semua pihak pada cita-cita konstitusi. Secara operasional, ide-ide ekonomi kerakyatan bermaksud menggugah semua pihak untuk menaruh perhatian terhadap nasib perekonomian rakyat, yaitu perekonomian mereka yang selama ini hanya bisa melihat dan terpikat, tapi belum dapat turut serta merasa nikmat.

Kedaulatan Rakyat
Persoalannya adalah, tindakan apakah yang dapat dilakukan untuk memberdayakan perekonomian rakyat? Sejauh ini, elaborasi gagasan ekonomi kerakyatan lebih banyak berputar-putar di sekitar diajukannya tuntutan kepada pemerintah untuk memperbaharui kebijakan ekonominya. Gagasan-gagasan itu antara lain terwujud dalam bentuk diajukannya tuntutan untuk segera melahirkan UU Anti Monopoli, UU Perlindungan Usaha Kecil, dan UU Perlindungan Konsumen. Sedangkan reaksi pemerintah sejauh ini masih terbatas pada diselenggarakannya
berbagai program pembangunan yang bersifat parsial dan karitatif. Program-program sinterklas itu misalnya adalah berupa pembagian sebagian kecil saham konglomerat kepada koperasi, penyisihan satu sampai lima prosen keuntungan BUMN sebagai bantuan modal bagi pengusaha golongan ekonomi lemah, pengalokasian 20% kredit perbankan bagi pengembangan usaha kecil, serta program Inpres Desa Tertinggal.

Sehubungan dengan tuntutan untuk segera melahirkan UU Anti Monopoli misalnya, walaupun rancangannya telah diajukan sejak lama, tanpa alasan yang jelas pembahasan dan pengesahannya oleh DPR cenderung tersendat-sendat. Padahal, andai pun undang-undang itu disahkan oleh DPR, sama sekali belum ada jaminan bahwa sepak terjang para konglomerat akan segera dapat dikendalikan, atau kondisi perekonomian rakyat dapat segera diperbaiki. Sebab akar persoalannya tidak terletak di situ. Kembali pada penggalan kalimat yang terdapat dalam penjelasan Pasal 33 UUD 1945 sebagaimana dikemukakan tadi, yang diperlukan dalam rangkan mewujudkan ekonomi kerakyatan atau demokrasi ekonomi bukanlah sekedar dilakukannya
produksi oleh semua, atau didistribusikannya hasil-hasil produksi itu untuk semua. Yang sangat mendasar dalam perekonomian Indonesia yang berdasar kerakyatan adalah dilakukannya kegiatan produksi dan distribusi itu di bawah pimpinan atau penilikan anggota-anggota masyarakat. Dengan kata lain, yang menentukan terwujudnya perekonomian Indonesia yang demokratis adalah tumbuhnya kemampuan rakyat untuk mengendalikan atau mengawasi jalannya perekonomian. Berbicara mengenai kemampuan rakyat untuk mengendalikan atau mengawasi jalannya perekonomian, berarti berbicara mengenai di tangan siapa kedaulatan berada; di tangan negara atau di tangan rakyat? Menurut konstitusi, kedaulatan seharusnya berada di tangan rakyat. Karena kenyataan yang kita jumpai agak bertolak belakang dengan amanat konstitusi, maka yang sangat dibutuhkan untuk memberdayakan perekonomian rakyat saat ini adalah dikembalikannya kedaulatan kepada rakyat. Hanya dengan kedaulatan rakyat itulah ekonomi kerakyatan akan dapat diselenggarakan. Tanpa kedaulatan rakyat tidak akan ada ekonomi kerakyatan.-

(Dimuat di harian Pikiran Rakyat, 22 Agustus 1995)

Ada kabar yang cukup kontras dari  berita Radar Jember JP kamis 22/11/2001. Pertama, diberitakan bahwa tindakan tegas dilakukan Dinas Koperasi dan Usaha Kecil Menengah (Diskop dan UKM) Kabupaten Jember. Beberapa koperasi yang dinilai tidak aktif dan hanya tinggal nama dibubarkan. Sampai saat ini, tercatat ada sepuluh koperasi yang dibubarkan. Selain itu, diskop juga telah memberi peringatan kepada 29 koperasi. Sebab, ada indikasi koperasi-koperasi itu sudah tidak aktif lagi. Bila peringatan itu tak diindahkan, tak menutup kemungkinan koperasi itu juga akan ditutup. Kedua,  H Moh. Niti Soeroso, ketua ketua Dewan Koperasi Indonesia Daerah (Dekopinda) Jember Niti mendapat penghargaan Bakti Koperasi dan Usaha Kecil Menengah yang diberikan Menteri Negara Koperasi dan Usaha Kecil Menengah RI. Penghargaan tersebut diberikan atas keberhasilan Niti Soeroto dalam membina dan mengembangkan koperasi dan usaha kecil menengah di Jember. Membaca berita tersebut, saya tidak kuasa untuk membiarkan begitu saja informasi itu lepas. Tulisan ini mencoba mengapresiasi dua berita tersebut. Terlebih sekarang saya berada di ‘gudangnya’ pakar koperasi dunia di Philipps Universität Marburg- Jerman, dimana sedang ‘ngangsu kaweruh’ dalam bidang Koperasi. 

Mari kita kembali ke sejarah Perkoperasian Indonesia. Jelas bahwa faktor sejarah sangatlah tidak menguntungkan bagi tumbuh kembangnya Koperasi dewasa ini. Mengapa? Koperasi dalam konteks pergerakannya di Indonesia mengalami fase yang tidak stabil dan tidak kontinue, mulai dari koperasi menjadi alat partai sampai koperasi menjadi alat pemerintah. Kondisi inilah yang mempersulit gerakan koperasi di Indonesia. Yang menarik adalah di era Orde Baru koperasi mengalami fase pertumbuhan yang cukup mengembirakan dari sisi kuantitas tapi mengapa tidak bisa menjadi pilar ekonomi nasional. Pertanyaan berikutnya relevankah untuk kembali ke Koperasi yang sekian lama hanya menjadi ‘pajangan’ saja. 

Sejenak melihat statistik perkoperasian dunia, menurut ILO dalam Report V(1): Promotion of Cooperatives (2001) dewasa ini koperasi diyakini memberikan sumbangan yang signifikan bagi pertumbuhan ekonomi. PBB mengestimasian bahwa 3 milyar orang bermata pencaharian atau separuh populasi dunia dari bangun usaha Koperasi. Paling tidak 800 juta individu menjadi anggota koperasi saat ini, jika dibandingkan dengan tahun 1960 yang hanya 184 juta. Dalam tataran makro ekonomi, Koperasi secara signifikan  memberikan market share yang memadai. Misalnya di Burkina Faso, Koperasi Produk Pertanian merupakan penghasil terbanyak untuk pasok buah-buahan dan sayuran dipasaran nasional dan di Cote d’Ivory, koperasi bertanggung jawab terhadap 77 persen produksi Cotton. Di Uruguay koperasi memproduksi 90 persen produk national susu dan mengekspor 70 persen surplus produksi terigunya. Bahkan di Amerika Serikat pada tahun 1998, 33 persen di sediakan oleh koperasi dan Koperasi Listrik Pedesaan memberikan kontribusi lebih dari setenggah pasok aliran listrik dan menyediakan kekuatan listrik untuk 25 juta orang di 46 negara bagian. Di Denmark, koperasi memberikan kontribusi 94 persen produk susu untuk pasaran nasional. Folksam, sebuah koperasi asuransi di Swedia telah menggelola 48,9 persen pasar asuransi perumahan dan 50 persen untuk asuransi jiwa dan kecelakaan. Suatu angka yang tidak bisa dibilang remeh untuk ukuran Koperasi yang kelihatan sepele. Negara tetangga kita, Philipina bahkan mengakui 16 persen dari GDP –nya merupakan sumbangan koperasi.  Bagaimana dengan statistik kinerja Koperasi Indonesia? Rekan saya  memberi saran: ngak  usah dimasukkan dalam artikel inilah, malu, katanya.  Mungkin ada benarnya juga rekan saya tersebut, dari pada malah menjadi beban. 

Kembali ke pertanyaan diatas, tidak mudah  untuk menjawab sejauh mana mendesaknya dan relevan tidaknya koperasi di Indonesia menghadapi kenyataan stagnan-nya ekonomi Indonesia. Secara ideologi, koperasi di Indonesia mendapat jaminan dari UUD 45, dimana dalam pasal 33 dinyatakan bahwa koperasi adalah pilar ekonomi. Namun demikian dalam kenyataanya sangat jauh dari itu. Koperasi tidak dapat berkembang dan sampai saat ini belum dapat menjadi pilar ekonomi nasional. Berangkat dari logika ideologi ini, sepertinya perlu dipertanyakan mengapa koperasi tidak dapat tumbuh dan berkembang di Indonesia. Apanya yang salah. Jangan-jangan lingkungan Indonesia memang tidak memungkinkan untuk berkembang. Bukankah UUD 45 dibuat dengan penuh ketergesaan dan mungkin dipaksakan koperasi yang produk impor itu masuk dalam konstitusi kita. Atau mungkin saking baiknya orang Indonesia yang gampang menerima ‘barang-barang impor’, sehingga apa saja diterima dengan senang hati, dan begitu ada yang lebih menguntungkan secara pribadi yang lama cepat-cepat ditinggalan. Moga-moga saja dugaan saya ini salah adanya. 

Problemnya adalah Pendidikan
Sudah lama kepercayaan manusia Indonesia terhadap eksistensi koperasi semakin menyurut, apalagi pendidikan koperasi sangat jauh dari sempurna. Jika dibandingkan dengan negara-negara Eropa yang sudah dulu maju dengan bangun usaha ini, kita sangat jauh tertinggal. Di negara Swedia, pendidikan Koperasi dikenalkan pada generasi dini dalam bentuk buku bacaan semacam Komik, sehingga terlihat santai dan ringan tapi lebih mengena pada visi dan misi yang ingin disampaikan. Pengajaran pendidikan Koperasi oleh jajaran Depdiknas di tingkat dasar dan menengah menjadi ‘barang’ yang membosankan dengan penuh hapalan dan monoton. Tetapi berkat pendidikan yang memadai pula Koperasi di Eropa khususnya mampu menyaingi Private Corporate, lihat saja DG Bank AG di Jerman yang merupakan bank koperasi terbesar. Jika anda berkesempatan belanja  ke jaringan supermarket REWE atau EDEKA di Jerman mungkin Anda tidak akan mengira bahwa bangun usaha supermarket tersebut adalah  Koperasi. Contoh lain, jika Anda berbelanja di jaringan supermarket LiDL, Tegut atau Aldi di Jerman pula, Anda akan melihat banyak barang yang dijual di super market itu dipasok dari Koperasi Sayur dan Buah-buahan. Konsumen akan tidak mengetahui kalau bangun usaha itu koperasi karena di depan super market itu memang tidak terpampang tulisan: Toko Koperasi Serba Usaha: -Segalanya ‘Aya’ - seperti jamaknya di Indonesia. Sama seperti jika kita masuk ke jaringan supermarket Matahari, Indomaret atau Hero di Indonesia, standar pelayanan dan kepuasan konsumen dinomer satukan.  Pendidikan Koperasi yang dilakukan oleh Departemen Koperasi terasa sangat kurang atau mungkin ajaran Koperasi sendiri yang diharuskan di campur dengan ‘spirit Indonesia’ malah menjadi kacau, tumpang tindih dan sarat muatan. Penulis yakin dengan pendidikan yang memadai akan terakumulasi pemahaman yang sebenarnya, sehingga lahir manusia koperasi dan manager yang mempunyai cooperative sense, macam pak Niti Soeroso diatas. 

Profesor saya disini dengan lancar dan panjang lebar bercerita dalam kuliah ‘Genossenchaftslehre’ (Studi Ilmu Koperasi) tentang konsep Gotong Royong atau Arisan di Indonesia, dengan pengucapan kata bahasa Indonesia yang fasih, sebagai cikal bakal potensial gerakan Koperasi di Indonesia karena didalamnya terkandung esensi atau nilai demokrasi, self help, tanggung jawab keadilan dan kesetiakawanan.  Bahkan koperasi sendiri dikenal sebagai school of participation.  Dimana pergerakannya dalam pendekatan pembangunan sangat terbuka untuk membentuk kemitraan antara players dan stakeholder, seperti pemerintah daerah dan pemerintah pusat, donatur, LSM atau organisasi internasional. Dalam wacana konsepsi sepertinya Koperasi telah menemukan habitat yang tepat di Indonesia. Tetapi dalam implementasinya sangat jauh. Memang benar Koperasi berangkat dari persepsi demokrasi dan kebersamaan untuk memenuhi kebutuhan anggotanya dan masyarakat sekelilingnya dengan identitas yang dimiliki.  Namun sebagai suatu nilai sejauhmana mampu pertahan dalam keyakinan manusianya?. Hal ini yang masih terbuka untuk diperdebatkan. 

Dari sisi manajeman, perbedaan mendasar Koperasi dan perusahaan swasta lebih pada sistemnya. Kalau Koperasi lebih menitikberatkan participative management system, sedangkan perusahaan swasta lebih condong pada eksploitative management system. Kondisi inilah yang terkadang dalam prakteknya saling campur aduk dan sulit dipisahkan. Padahal jelas-jelas bahwa koperasi mempunyai jati diri yang berbeda dengan badan usaha lain. Bung Hatta yakin bahwa koperasi kuat karena cita-cita yang diembannya dan akan menjadi kuat karena prakteknya. Namun kenyataanya malah anomalis dan  terkadang membinggungkan dalam penerapannya. Ibnu Sujono (2000) mengemukan bahwa koperasi Indonesia sering menjadi olokan banyak negara di forum internasional sebagai “corporative”  yaitu gabungan antara korporasi dan koperasi 

Mengembangkan Embrional Koperasi
Satu informasi yang cukup memprihatikan dari rekan saya yang kebetulan bergerak di bidang perkoperasian dan sedang studi Doktoran bidang Koperasi di sini, katanya ada cerita yang cukup menarik bahwa pernah ada (dulu), beberapa kepala kantor wilayah (setingkat propinsi) yang harus lengser dari kursinya, karena target KUD Mandiri-nya terlalu kecil.  Bahkan ada kepala kantor departemen koperasi (setingkat kabupaten) di Sumatera yang gantung diri gara-gara didesak memandirikan KUD-KUD di wilayah kerjanya (mudah-mudahan alasan sebenarnya  gantung diri bukan karena KUD Mandiri). 

Lebih jauh, saya setuju dengan pendapatnya bahwa kita memang terlalu konservatif dengan performance koperasi di Indonesia.  Kalau ada hal dari koperasi yang menurun, orang-orang di departemen koperasi sepertinya kebakaran jenggot. Pengembangan bentuk-bentuk pooling resources yang sudah ada di Indonesia, seperti gotong royong, tudang sipulung, subak, arisan, dsb. sudah harus digalakkan lagi. Terlebih seiring dengan gema otonomi daerah.  Bentuk-bentuk lokal inilah yang harus dilembagakan, dengan catatan tidak kaku dan tidak perlu seragam-seragaman, tapi case by case.  Lembaga-lembaga lokal ini tidak perlu di-koperasi-koperasi-kan segala, tapi disupport dan difasilitasi oleh pemerintah sehingga mereka bisa juga mempunyai akses ke bank, bahkan ke pasar modal. Why not? Departemen koperasi tidak perlu bubar, karena mereka mempunyai tugas baru membina lembaga-lembaga pooling resources lokal. 

Mungkin kita perlu merenungkan pepatah Jerman berikut ini: “Wer den Pfennig nicht ehrt, ist des Talers nicht wert”. Kalau penulis terjemahkan bebas kira-kira berbunyi, „Jika tidak bisa menghargai satu Pfennig (pecahan 0,01 DM),  jangan berharap dapat lebih“. Dalam konteks Koperasi, jika tidak mampu menghargai badan usaha Koperasi yang remeh ini jangan harap bisa menggelola perusahaan-perusahaan multi nasional (MNC= Multi National Corporations). Lebih-lebih menghadapi era globalisasi, dimana tersirat erat polah tingkah MNC sebagai bangun usaha kapitalistik yang mencengkram kuat dan berperan besar dalam perputaran perdagangan dan  investasi global. 
Marburg, den 22.11.2001 

Biodata Penulis: 
Adhitya Wardhono SE. MSi, staf pengajar jurusan Ilmu Ekonomi  FE-Univ Jember sedang studi Ilmu Ekonomi Koperasi pada Philipps University- Marburg, Jerman.

(terbit pada Radar Jember Jawa Pos 6 Desember 2001)

Abstract 
The globalisation of economic is a phenomenon which co-operative seems to take little interest. Here, we analyse issues of the cooperative responding the changing environment. Cooperative is a unique entity and founded to operate and compete in free markets. The record shows a diverse and extensive range of co-operative businesses operating world wide. Without co-operative some people may have not access to the marketplace. Open access is a key requirement for the optimal working of the marketplace. The problem of managerial cooperative, as the size of the co-operative increases, cannot be resolved by structural approach or legislative regulation alone. The safest approach is to change the culture and values of the managers of co-operatives to ensure that the content as well as the form of co-operative values, process and match and are communicated to all members. 
A philosophy, or sometimes is called credos, of cooperative member education is a set of fundamental beliefs and a way of thinking about cooperative member education. It deals with principles, truths, with ultimate ends. And we also discuss this problem in Indonesian co-operative case as one of the important economics institutions in Indonesian economy. This paper reviews and analyses the case and emphases in economic aspects. 

Key word :changing environment, management, professionalism, co-operative education.
 

INTRODUCTION
    Co-operative has played an important role in the world economy since its rapid development of some newer forms of co-operative. There are many different factors which are forcing co-operatives to change. Some changes may be very specific to co-operatives in particular regions or countries, while the other factors may affect widely but specific sectors. To the first they mostly concern to those involved with co-operatives including the globalisation of market; de-regulation and privatisation; and to the latter, from state-sponsorship to autonomy as a new phenomena in developing countries1. Moreover, increasing global economic competition, declining foreign aids and state subsidy have put new pressures on governments to reduce the level of spending and improve the cost-effiency of public services. This tendency hits the weakest sections of communitiy and widens disparity between the poor and the rich. Although many co-operatives have made a breakthrough, particularly in developed countries dealing with market share, in many cases they suffer a negative public image. Co-operative in public eye is seen as an inefficient enterprises, set up being only to serve to the poor. Rapid globalisation of the world economy and the rise of multinational corporations have adverse repercussions on co-operatives[1].Nevertheles, many of the long-established co-operative enterprises have grown into large scale, professionally run and solidly financed and ready to compete with other commercial firm2. 
    The discourse of the co-operative organisation can be viewed at least from two sides, the macro and micro aspects. In macro aspect, co-operative is viewed its effort toward changing enviroment. And the micro aspect tends to discuss management and internal factor of cooperative, such as education and training in co-operative. In managerial aspect, co-operative has a lot critics and problems to solve. Issues on professionalisation in co-operative also dominate the debate on how co-operative must deal with the future. Co-operative as a business enterprise is founded to operate and compete in free markets and changing world. Consequently this organisation needs to develop strategies to maintain its focus and purpose, as well as hold and also develop its values, and services to members and customers. The movement is also pushed with necessary supports and incentives through various schemes- low interest loans, fiscal benefits, management consultancy, etc to improve its management performance. Much emphasis is also being laid to professionalise the management of co-operative through education. 
    The improvement of human resource in co-operative has to be viewed in this context and as an integral part of its performing ability. The key words of human resource development in co-operative is education and training. The role of educatian and trainning are essential factor in this movement. In the fact, however, co-operative in Indonesia faces many problem particularly the quality and quantity of co-operator as trainer or leader. Beside that, many people are not understand about why co-operative is needed and how co-operative should be operated. 
    The main purpose of this paper is to analyse the co-operative toward the changing environment. This paper uses literature reviews and analyses the case of Indonesian that viewed macro economics aspects as well as its micro aspect such as management, education and training. The management and profesionalism of co-operative will be presented. In addition this paper also suggests that education and training program is a vital part of cooperative preparing to respond changing environment. 

CO-OPERATIVE IN CHANGING ENVIRONMENT
    There are two important aspects for co-operative in responding the change environment, the first is external aspect, such as globalisation economics and its effect, and the second is internal aspect, such as autonomy and the role of government and its effect. After decades of structural adjustment, deregulation, liberalisation of market and revision of co-operative legislation, the administrative and legal conditions for autonomous co-operative based on the initiative of their members have improved. However, the government-supervised co-operatives complain that they have lost government’s supports and privileges, and they are not prepared for their new role as self-responsible businessses on a competitive market. This can lead them to collapse [2]. Obviously, globalization has reinforced the influence of global market force since it overcomes in geographical distances through advanges in comunication and transportation. Globalization has greatly increased the importance multi national companies, NGO, and regional trading blocs and fostered policy coordination between countries3. However, the globalisation in world economy is a phenomenon which co-operatives seem to take little interest. Hence, co-operative must seek a new strategy in its practice and politics. 
    Political and economic changes in developing countries have resulted in changes the role of state, the co-operatives and apex organisation (the board of representative of co-operatives) from sponsoring to giving more autonomy to this institution. Although many co-operatives have found difficulties to respond to the challenges, however, co-operatives have been recognised as a powerful instrument to transform economy of a country. Münkner has pointed that as long as government agencies in charge of co-operative development continue to offer services to co-operatives free of charge, which co-operative federations and apex organisation can only offer against fees, the co-operative apex organisations remain weak and fragile. However, government services for co-operative development are stopped, co-operatives complain that they are abandoned by government and cannot survive on their own [2].Experiencing Indonesian co-operative, Nasution emphases that what makes the co-operative cannot develop and unable to be autonomous, is caused the unsuitable environment.4 This reality can not be refused, but a suitable environment is needed in creating and growing co-operative. In reality, many Indonesian co-operative was put unsuitable environment. However, clearly the problem is not in the co-operative, but in the environment. Sometimes the government has created the conditions that made it more difficult, with issuing the economic regulation only to the private sector. 

CO-OPERATIVE ENTERPRISES AND ITS STRATEGIES
    A strategy is an essential management tool that provides framework for evaluating success and failure within organisation. It is essential matter since the co-operative management depends to it to co-ordinate and evaluate its performance. Strategy defines the methods and resources that will be deployed in achievement of objectives and to delineate the processes of deployment at various levels and between various function in the co-operative over a given time frame [3]. At the moment, strategy applied in the ‘seven principle’ of co-operative should strengthen expectation in generating co-operative. 
    A scrutiny over the seven principles of the co-operative movement show obviously that the movement has a perfect management strategy (see: principles of co-operative). The understanding of these principles should be implemented into activities that can be emulated and practised for the benefit of co-operative members and the public. Co-operative members must be able to show to the public the advantages that can be illustrated in comparison with other systems. If, as co-operative members, we are not able to illustrate the advantages of the co-operative movement then we may not be able to compete with other sectors [4].The advantage of co-operative as a business enterprises could attract member through participation and co-operation image improvement. 
    As many co-operative in developing countries, Indonesian co-operative must be able to adopt a strategic development of management with policy approach and principles accommodation. This policy and strategy should be supported in order to improve co-operative as a business enterprise. As a consequence, it must be an effective and efficient organisation. In order to achieve the objective through strategic implementation. Indonesian Co-operative must also develop its image in society. It is a fundamental strategy that need understanding from co-operator, government and apex organisation. For example, yet there is confusion in developing country that co-operatives, only help the poor and that they are only for the poor. The assumption that co-operatives are established on a voluntary basis, since they only open a small shop, they are incapable to compete with individual companies, that they are incapable of developing and competing with private companies and so on is a picture of digression. These images are absolutly not true, but also not entirely wrong. Moreover, the implementation of strategic management in co-operative, however needs professional's human resources and business cultures. 

CO-OPERATIVE PROFESSIONALISM
    The management problem is related to issues of professionalisation in co-operative. The discussion of profesionalisation of management has become important aspect not only in co-operative but also in economic sector. Today is profesionalisation remains a distant dream in all of economic sector. Especially in co-operative, lack of professional management makes difficulties in growing co-operative. Taimni notes that management in co-operatives alone can be professionalised without corresponding to other sectors of the economy such as public, private and joint venture. Some of the wider social and cultural factors that inhibit professionalisation of management in other sectors of the economy remain equally valid for economy is related to the maturity of its organisation, and time that has elapsed since the start of the process of industrialisation[5]. In practice, much of co-operative have been organised with unprofessional management. Moreover the role of chairman and the director board of co-operative vis a vis the professional managers, act disharmony and make a lot of internal conflict.

    In practice, professionalism means to make objective decision making and optimum utilization of resources within the frame work imposed by basic value and philosophy of co-operation. Futhermore, the trend of profesionalisation in co-operation must be improved through many elements, not only government and apex but also private sector as business partner. Professionalism in co-operative shows separation on democratic control from executive management and authority to allocate resources and make decision. The incondusive condition of co-operative, however, needs considerable time to make the process of profesionallisation. Many co-operatives in Indonesia have problems to implement profesionalisation. A lot of co-operatives was collapsed and showed greatly cases of corruption and employment conflicts. These conditions make co-operative uninteresting economic institution.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING
    The development of human resources is the foundation for a sucessful business including co-operative. Human resources development includes training and education of all concerned with its particular business [6] . The agenda of co-operative responding the future is to prepare the education and training more suitable way. The success or failure depend on how well education and training in co-operative has be done. 

    Theoretically, co-operative education and training can be defined as a total process of developing mental abilities, knowledge, skills, attitudes, and other forms of behaviour in such a way that individual’s personality may be developed to the fullest possible extend carried out sistematically and continuously and designed to communicate a combination of knowledge, skills and understanding in cooperative field valuable for all the activities of socio-economic life of the society [ 7 ]. However, developing education and training is not only co-operative’s problem but also for other economic business. The program is not merely aimed in improving quality of human resource but also in expanding and deepening co-operative capacities at all levels. The cooperative capacity to compete and their role in economic sector is determinated by success of this education program.
    Education and training campaigns have to start by training the trainer to make sure that the new vision of co-operative as member owned, member oriented and member self-help organisation is taught, rather than perpetuating old misconceptions and that members, office bearer and staff of co-operatives understand their new roles [2]. Yet, many developing countries must independent and autonomous to generate this situation. Their own system on co-operative education. They face problems since the development of co-operative training system needs money, materials and methods. But in fact they lack of them. In this regards in some developing countries, such as Indonesia, they have no independent co-operatives. Co-operative needs participatory, as participation of Co-operative Movement will also decide the achievement of co-operative education objective.

CONCLUDING NOTE
    However, in the future, co-operatives need a conducive environment before they can play this beneficial role. This paper stresses only the problem of co-operative of Indonesia in the context of this changing environment. But the discursive observation expressed in this paper may reflect that this phenomen can be referenced for many co-operative movement and government, other developing countries. In this regards, some recommendation can be inferred: 

1. Co-operative has to adjust to new barrier trading to increased competition within the trading block resulted from globalisation economic. Furthermore, co-operative’s development operates through its networks, alliances, colaborative partnerships and other organisational forms, can bring new solutions to meet economic and social needs resulting from changes in global and local economies. Its development however  defines the relation between the state and the co-operative movement in a way that respects the principle of co-operative autonomy. Decentralization is the tranfer of decision making power to more directly concerned, lower levels of government and administrative authority. 

2. In the long run, co-operative has to give more priority and consentration to build a modern management. Co-operative can be success only with business enterprise culture and ethics. Strategic Management is a mainframe for this organisation. However government should support on strategic development of co-operative, especially to create a conducive business environment. 

3. Professionalism has become to be seen as the defining feature of modern society. Management becomes a profession and is now widely accepted as such. Unless the co-operative resolve gradually to introduce professionalism in their management, these are not likely to be able to effectively compete in the market, and service their members, both essential for retaining members’s loyalty [5].Professionalism has to be the priority and have to be made in improving working condition in co-operative. 

4. The co-operative must not depend on the state for their survival. Futhermore, education and training of co-operative have to be a priority to be developed. Remember that there are co-operative without co-operators and the succes of co-operative movement depends on the succes of education co-operative progamme. Education and training programme as an integral part to refresh the commitment of co-operative as part of the instrument of democratise macro economics reform has to strengthen management capacity in conducting their business management. 
 
 

REFERENCES

1. Bucktowar, D, Reviewing The Relationship Between The Goverment And Co-operative: The Mauritian Experience, 2000, in New Changes for Cooperativ Self-help in the Context of Liberalization and Globalization practical experiences and the theoritical reorientation, Seminar for graduates of Co-operative Economics from 24th to 29th January 2000, ICDC, Philipps University of Marburg, Germany. 

2. Münkner,Past, Present and Future Direction of the Co-operative Businesses, Paper presented at the Asia Pasific Co-operatives and Small & Medium Enterprises Network Conference, Jakarta, Juli 14-15, 1997. 

3. Davis, Peter,Managing the Cooperative Difference, ILO, Geneva, 1999 

4. ICA,The Strategy for success of the Co-operative Business (1998) in Co-op Dialogue, Vol. 8, No. 3, Oct.-Dec., 1998, pp. 36-38 

5. Taimni, K.K, 1993, Co-operative Development: The Next Phase, ICA DOMUS TRUST, New Dehli 

6. Prakash, Daman, Management of Co-operative Training in Indonesia- Some Recent Development, in Selected Reading on Cooperative Development in Indonesia, editor Asmawi Hasan, The National Centre For Cooperative Training & Development, Departement of Cooperative, Indonesia, 1986. 

7. Hassan, Asnawi, Policy Environment For Training And Membership Education For Cooperatives Development in Indonesia, inTheLecture Forum and Monograph Series on Cooperative Management and Development,The Southeast Asia Forum For Development Antenatives, Jakarta, Indonesia. 
 

NOTES: 
1.for deeper discussion see Parnell, Edgar, Reinventing Co-operation: the challenge of the 21thcentury, Plunkett Foundation, UK,1999. 
2.. see ILO, 2000,p.9 
3.see ILO, 2000, p.24-25 
4.for deeper discussion see Nasution, Muslimin, Experience of TheCo-operative Autonomy: Observation and Recommendation, The Lecture Forum and Monograph Series on Co-operative Management and Development,The Southeast Asia Forum For Development Alternatives, Jakarta, Indonesia, 1992 

ABSTRACT
In the development of co-operative, it is too little understanding among society that the co-operative is an business enterprise. This misperception makes the co-operative only rhetoric and “romantic” business lives in society. In fact the co-operative can only work within a modern organisation and strategic management. Co-operative, an as organisation comprising individuals who has similar aspiration and activity and owned collectively, should consider effective strategies if it wants to survive in this very competitive world. Every activity developed, that is based on the co-operative principles, should be able to withstand and overcome competition from other management approach, such as capitalistic businesses. Therefore, a co-operative-based enterprise should be able to adapt itself in this continuous changing world.
This paper attempts to build a critical historical review concerning this misconception and to argue that co-operative organisation can be the best chance to develop a strong business enterprise. The case will be elaborated is co-operative in Indonesia. 
Keyword: Co-operative, business enterprise, management, Indonesian co-operative

INTRODUCTION
The evolution and spread of modern co-operative movement in Europe has often been characterised as a rapid process, that was also influenced by ideologies shared by the participants. However, it may be remembered that only by the end of the 19th century, i.e. one or two generation after the initiation of the first successfully operating co-operatives, more or less consolidated movements of primary and secondary co-operative institution had been firmly established in the European countries. During this period various disappointments and failures were experienced and measures had to be undertaken to avoid such mistakes and to improve the conditions for the development of co-operatives in the future. In this regard the establishment of secondary co-operative business institutions and co-operative federations, the creation of auditing facilities and of consultancy services, the enactment of co-operative law and also the support of governments may be mentioned [1].
A Co-operative as a self help organisation is embedded in community, district or region in where it works. Beside an economic entity, it is a social entity. As social entity it is influenced by the social relationship existing in their area of operation and by the cultural environment reflected in norms and values adhered to by the local population [2]. This paper tries to explain the phenomena of co-operatives in Indonesia through historical reviews and how to make improvement upon this organisation. 

TYPOLOGY OF CO-OPERATIVE
A co-operative society is an association of persons who have voluntarily joined together to achieve a common end through the formation of a democratically controlled organisation, making equitable contributions to the capital required and accepting a fair share of the risks and benefits of the undertaking, in which the members actively participate . This definition covers also groups and associations that are less “formal” than registered co-operatives, provided these groups are based on democratic principles and pursue an economic goal. On the other hand, the definition draws a clear line between co-operatives and capital-based enterprises, community-based organisations and NGOs (although co-operatives and NGOs share certain common characteristics).
If we look at the progress of the co-operative movement since the idea was mooted by founders of the movement in Rochdale, though it was established owing to exploitation of consumers by capitalist entrepreneurs and individual traders, in the recent days, the co-operative is respected in many countries including developed nation. The models developed by Raiffeisen in Germany, Blanc in France and the Rochdale Pioneers in England have set the pattern for all future developments, defining the effective areas and basic principles of operation. 
In England (and also Europe in general) the co-operative movement, like trade unionism, was a popular movement that had its origins in the hardship of the working class during the industrial revolution. The low wages and harsh working conditions were aggravated by the high cost of their basic needs in the new environment, as merchants exploited their plight. The co-operatives which were initially formed were thus consumer co-operatives. Credit unions and housing ventures then came later. 
It was a laisser-faire social and economic structure situation in which the Government would have been most reluctant to interfere. The introduction of welfare schemes and even frame work legislation for the establishment of mutual benefit or self-help organisations would have been regarded as heresy in the social milieu of that era. It was only when the economic well-being of a number of employees, in both government and private sectors, was being jeopardised and their efficiency impaired, as a result of their financial encumbrances, which was giving rise to an indebtedness psychosis, that the government took cognisance of the extent of indebtedness among its subordinate staff and considered remedial measures.

HISTORICAL FEATURE OF INDONESIAN CO-OPERATIVE[3]
The first co-operative law was introduced in Indonesia in 1915 on the Netherlands model. In 1927 a revised law, largely based on British-Indian model was issued, and co-operatives began to developed amongst Indonesians. The first Co-operative Department was established in 1935 and this became part of the Office for Co-operatives and Home Trade in 1939. At this time, co-operatives were primarily for thrift and credit and were more or less confined to Java. Half of the members were civil servants, 20 percent tradesmen and only 20 percent farmers. Following independence, a new co-operative ordinance was issued with registered based (as with the 1927 law) on Indian example. Supervision of co-operatives was, however, delegated to co-operative movement’s own organisation. 
In the 1958 a new co-operative law was issued, and in the period 1960-1966 the number of co-operatives expanded rapidly, however they were highly politicised. There was an interventionist government approach. The change of Government in 1966 initially brought a strong reaction in favour of co-operatives that de-officiallised. The co-operative law of 1967, known as the “Law on the Basic Principles of Co-operatives”, made provision for independency. Co-operatives, apart from those in agriculture, were registered and audited by Government, but not actively promoted. The government directed co-operatives (KUD) were viewed as basic unist for Agricultural development, especially since the beginning of the Third Five Year Plan, when a special Minister of Co-operatives was appointed. However, it can be said that the efforts to make the KUD’s a viable instrument for initiating and implementing rural development failed widely. According to Mubyarto one of the reasons for this failure, besides corruption, lack of management capacity and the like, was the fact that the Co-operative as a business enterprise requires economic scale in which unlikely can be achieved [4].
The importance of the co-operative organisation can be viewed at least from two sides, the macro and micro aspects. In most developing countries, from the macro point of view, according to Soetrisno co-operatives are considered as an instrument for promoting development, especially in agricultural and rural sector [5]. This approach has been adopted for many years and has been quite successful in fulfilling the macro objectives. Nevertheless, there are many problems in bringing co-operative into genuine self reliant organisations and to some extent, these have created prolonged dependency. Sicat and Yun suggest that macro objectives are not always based on economic considerations, but as in the case of most developing countries, also based on political, social, as well as cultural aspects. On the other hand, “from the micro point of view, co-operatives are perceived advantageous in small organisation and scattered activities of individual members for gaining economies of scale and as a means for internalising external economies”[5]. In more developed countries, however, co-operatives have a good bargaining position.
This argument has to be based on the function of primary societies as an organisation of people that maintains direct link between members and the organisation. But in fact co-operatives are also a form of business enterprises that contains a development system. Therefore they have possibility to organise a higher degree of integration for better access to the market. There is a strong belief that the co-operative system has strength to unify efforts to make integrated network. Despite the success of co-operatives as has been shown in developed countries and has been demonstrated by certain types of co-operatives such as dairy, we discover however among developing countries, a history of failure in promoting trade network under co-operatives system.

INDONESIAN CO-OPERATIVES IMPROVEMENT
Values principles, ethics and business competence constitute the co-operative for advantage to the members and to the communities in which they operate. Co-operatives put people first; they are member-owned; they are controlled under democratic principles; and they are competitive enterprises which are at least as efficient in their business operations and use of capital as others in the marketplace. Yet, they are not driven by profit, but rather by needs. These important differences from traditional enterprises will enable them to compete and prosper in the new Millennium .
In the case of Indonesian experience, Swasono notes that Indonesian co-operatives co-operate in mobilising economic forces to become a powerful synergy based on mutuality and brotherhood, in all micro, macro, local, regional and mondial level . Indonesian co-operative is very fortunate, that it has been determined to include co-operativism into its constitution, that “the economy shall be organised as a mutual endeavour based upon the principle of brotherhood” . Moreover Swasono emphasises that value of co-operatives a similar with the “economic democracy”. Its economic ideology is also guided by the maxim “from the people, by the people, for the people”. “Mutuality” and “brotherhood”, as stipulated in the constitution, certainly do not only serve as the spirit of the co-operative movement which is loaded with the noble social values of self-help and solidarity. That co-operative movement is not only concern with the efforts to yield more economic added-value for the people but also the socio-cultural added-value [6].
Co-operative values and spirits become more important than ideologies. Member orientation and management efficiency replaces submission to authorities as guiding principles of co-operative leaders [7]. Co-operative action will enable people to organise economic and social services they need. This it relieves the burden of the state and contributes to the success of structural adjustment. It makes people more aware of their freedom and responsible to determine and control their own destiny, thus making democratisation irreversible. It will also strengthen popular participation and decentralised decision-making. This situation may put national development on a broader base.
However, co-operatives need a conducive environment before they can play this beneficial role. This environment requires: 
· A new co-operative development policy that defines the relation between the state and the co-operative movement in a way that respects the principle of co-operative autonomy;
· A new co-operative legislation that translates this policy into legal rights and obligations and guarantees the autonomy of co-operatives; 
· A co-operative administration that confines itself to regulatory functions; 
· The establishment or strengthening of the vertical structure of co-operatives. 
· A system of co-operative support services (mainly education and training, business advisory services and external audit) that is largely managed and financed by the co-operative movement itself [7,8,9]. 

CONCLUSION
Globalisation as powerful restructuring influence is changing political, economic, and social relationship between peoples, organisation and institutions. The world economy is going into a process of deep integration under a management process located in supranational institution [10]. The top-down approach to co-operative promotion has failed everywhere even when it was based on very good intentions. In many countries, this approach has discredited the co-operative movement so much that the term “co-operative” can no longer be used. Preferential treatment of co-operatives in the form of grants, aid, subsidies, monopolies and credit allocations causes distortions which diminish their competitiveness. The role co-operatives can potentially play in fostering development is held to be significant. It is widely agreed that possibilities of co-operatives in this respect are twofold and they are related to a) the actual action they can take towards individual and social development and b) the values which guide such action (solidarity, participation, democracy, self help etc.) [11].

References: 
1. Hannel, Alfred , Basic Aspect of Cooperative Organizations and Cooperative Self Help Promotion in Developing Country, Marburg Consult für Selbsthilfeförderung, Germany, 1992 
2. Münkner, H.H, and Trodin, Rolf, Organised Self-help to Solve Housing Problem, Marburg Consult für Selbsthilfeförderung, Germany, 1999 
3. Hassan, Asnawi, Selected Reading on Cooperative Development in Indonesia, Department of Cooperative, Indonesia, 1986 
4. Bongart, Heinz, Self Help Organizations in Rural Java, Verlag breitenbach, Publishers, Saarbrücken, 1989 
5. Soetrisno, Noer, The Lecture-Forum And Monograph Series On Cooperatives Management And Development, No.3, (1-11), SEAFDA, Jakarta, 1991. 
6. Swasono, Sri Edi, SHAPING THE GLOBAL CO-OPERATIVISM, 1ST ASIA PACIFIC CO-OPERATIVE FORUM, 27-28 June 2000 
7. Schwettmann, Jurgen, Cooperative and Employment, Ocasional Discusion Paper 97-1, ILO, Geneva, 1997 
8. Münkner, H.H, Rediscovery of Co-operatives in Development Policy, COOP Dialogue, An ICA ROAP Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2000, pp. 8-13.
9. Münkner, H.H, Past Present Future Direction of the Co-operative Businesses, has been presented at the Asia Pasific Co-operatives and Small & Medium Enterprises Network Conference, Jakarta, July 14-15, 1997.
10. Caceres, Javiers, Globalization & restructuring of Canadian Wheat Industry in Review of International Co-operation vol.91 No.1/1998, 32-44. 
11. Cracogna, Dante, Consumer Co-operatives in developing Countries, in Düllfer, E and Hamm, Walter, Co-Operatives 505-520,Quilllelr Press, London, 1985. 

Cooperative is explicitly stated in the Indonesian basic constitution, declared in 1945, “Indonesian economy is built based on a brotherhood effort.  The business institution which is appropriate to this effort is cooperative”. Since then cooperatives were developing paralleled with other types of business institutions: private and state owned businesses. In fact, business in the country was developing significantly, hence it was dominated by private and state owned businesses. This is per-se acceptable since private and state-owned businesses could deal very well with the characteristics of business environment which  requires flexibility in facing the so-called free competition  and free market.  Moreover, Indonesian economy showed a positive performance due to this situation. Indonesia was even recognized as one of the most prosperous developing countries, the so-called miracle economies in the South East Asia region in 80s.

It was then 1997 when the economic crises hit Indonesia, as well as South East Asia Region. Surprisingly, country’s  businesses were steeply decreasing due to the crises.  Despite such phenomenal things as rioting and looting, it was questioned, “why businesses in Indonesia were so quick to be paralyzed while several weeks a go they were performed extremely well?”  There was no exact answer, but clearly that private and state-owned businesses contributed to this situation significantly.  Private and state-owned businesses had generated the economic growth in Indonesia.  However, they were growing and growing, and becoming huge companies/ conglomerate. They were owned by only few people and importantly they are highly capital invested.  Again, this is per-se normal due to the demand of recent business environment, to yield high quality and quantity of products or services. However, most of large scale companies producing products or services which were not supported by resources available locally, as well as possessed no significant added value.  Consequently, their products or services could not compete very well even in the local market.

Due to the crises, most of large scale businesses have been experiencing severe situations. The owners, as well as shareholders are backing off and giving up, as there is no economical reasons to continue their business operations.  Such problems as debt and millions of workers loosing their jobs remain to the government burden. Despite their hugeness, the large-scale company existing and developing in Indonesia are considerably fragile.  In turns, banks are having problems, as they had allocated long-term loans as many as billions of rupiah (Indonesian currency) to large scale businesses.  Banks are shutting down one by one due to the liquidity problems.  They are taken over by the government, and through a newly established government institution, called The Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA),  their assets are now sold (auctioned)  to get cash, indeed in a very cheap price, in order to revive these banks (once will think hardly to buy a skyscraper in city centers’ Indonesia, or factories while business environment  remains unclear). It is predicted that large companies in average cannot well-performed neither at the moment nor in the next 5 year period.  The period to restructure this situation is commonly called the transitional period.

In short, since large companies and banks are collapsed, business activities in the country are steeply decreasing.  Then, there were unsurprisingly thoughts to focus on other types of business institutions to take over the roles of large scale businesses in this transitional period. The government, economic observers, as well as the IMF strongly advised that small-scale businesses could be empowered to overcome this situation.  So, it could be assumed that Indonesian economy is now in the transitional period meaning large-scale companies, including banks are collapsed and they are now restructured by the government. Businesses are not totally stopped, since small-scale businesses are still operating.  Therefore, in the transitional period small-scale businesses are the only alternative to keep the country’s economy moving, in a very slow rate though.

Small–scale businesses in Indonesia are simply divided by two types: small-medium private companies and cooperatives. Small-medium companies are mostly operating in urban and city areas, while cooperatives deal with farmers in rural/ remote areas.  Cooperatives focus on bulk products, small-medium companies act as intermediaries enhancing the value of bulk products.  At this point, cooperatives will be more focused assuming that cooperatives are mostly positioned in the up-stream level.   Their position is potential to stimulate the overall business environment to keep moving. Also, cooperatives are considered as a formal institution, meaning that their formalities are useful and effective for such business activities as business transactions, investments, borrowing loans, etc.   Not necessarily related or networked, but each cooperative has a similar business rule and principal.  Importantly, they have such business facilities servicing farmers throughout remote villages. Additionally, since agriculture is still perceived as a crucial businesses, and farming quantitatively dominates the labor field in the country, cooperatives are relatively appropriate with this situation. In total, cooperatives possess a huge potentials to keep businesses moving.

In fact, the development of cooperative businesses is not as satisfied as large scale businesses in the past. It doesn’t mean that cooperatives were not developing.  They were, but they could not be compared with large scale businesses.  Besides the spectrum they cover were mostly in rural remote areas where traditional farmers and small business operators existed.  In other words, the qualitative development of cooperatives was almost none, hence they are quantitatively growing.  It seems that it’s a good idea when cooperatives take place the business activities in the up-stream level at this transitional period.   However, the situation of cooperatives in Indonesia is in question.  It is proved that their number is doubled, especially since the government had intentions to encourage their roles, as well as launched a new policy to improving the roles of cooperatives. As a result, if in the past each cooperative had in average 400 members, currently 200 members only. The number of cooperatives is increasing and, in the opposite, members is decreasing.  Additionally, most of members are traditional farmers or small businesses having no significant amount of money to set up the cooperative’s capital.  If so, cooperatives cannot performed better or succeed in this transition period, and remain the same as in the past.

In conclusion, cooperatives have a chance in this transitional period to improve their quality, only if there are efforts mainly by themselves to achieve their success. The number of cooperatives relative to the number of members in order to build capital and in overall business performance is the major focus to observe.  Let say that this transitional period is the opportunity for cooperatives to increase their business performance.  By the time they are improved and the transition is over, and large scale businesses come back in the country business activities, cooperatives could compete freely with large companies. If they are not improving their quality in the first hand, neither they could performed significantly in this transitional period nor they could exist in the future.

Data and Facts of the writer:
Herbert Siagian (Ph. D. Student at the Institute of Agricultural Economics, Giessen University – Germany (Dissertation theme: “Improving agricultural cooperative business performances through agribusiness integration strategy”).