Should our intellectuals shun politics?<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): On July 28 a new organization for intellectuals
\nwas set up in the Central Java town of Purwokerto. Persatuan
\nCendekiawan Pembangunan Pancasila (The Union of Development-
\noriented Pancasila Intellectuals), a rather complicated name.<\/p>\n
This is the sixth organization of its kind in Indonesia, after
\nthe ones created by Catholic intellectuals (1958), Protestant
\nintellectuals (1963), Moslem intellectuals (1990), Hindu
\nintellectuals (1991), and Buddhist intellectuals (1994).<\/p>\n
This new organization is the only one among the six not based
\non religious affiliation.<\/p>\n
Initial reactions can be divided into four categories. First,
\nthose who enthusiastically welcomed this new organization.
\nSecond, those who said that, in principle, they have no objection
\nagainst this new organization. Third, those who expressed
\nskepticism regarding the future of this new organization.<\/p>\n
And the fourth reaction was one which explicitly objected
\nagainst the use of the word Pancasila by this new organization.
\nSupporters of this particular view maintain that the use of this
\nword implies that only those belonging to this new organization
\nare the true Pancasilaists.<\/p>\n
These initial reactions were followed by more comments, which
\ndo not particularly discuss this new organization, but examine
\nthe general phenomenon of intellectuals setting up their own
\norganizations.<\/p>\n
Three broad comments emerged. The first comment maintains that
\nmobilizing intellectuals to join formal organizations is a
\npractice which is basically against the common tendency among
\nintellectuals. Persons who consider themselves intellectuals
\ngenerally dislike being herded toward uniformed opinions about
\nanything. They prefer loose organizations, in which they can have
\na free exchange of information and ideas.<\/p>\n
The second comment discusses the question of organizational
\ninvolvement of intellectuals in politics. It is argued that
\nintellectuals who want to play politics should do so without
\nputting on an intellectual cloak. And if intellectuals want to be
\nengaged in politics in a meaningful way, they should direct their
\nattention to political problems that affect the foundations of
\nnational life.<\/p>\n
One such problem is how to continually increase
\ndemocratization of the political process in Indonesia, in
\nresponse to the ever increasing awareness of members of society
\nregarding their political rights and obligations. These critics
\nalso point out that, according to the hadis (stories relating to
\nthe life of Prophet Mohammed, as told by his trusted disciples),
\nintellectuals have a moral duty which is quite similar to that of
\nprophets: to free their respective environments of political and
\neconomic oppression.<\/p>\n
The third comment argues that intellectuals and their
\norganizations should confine themselves to professional
\nactivities. It is in this area that intellectual organizations
\ncan carry out activities about which they have great expertise,
\nand through which they will generate results that are really
\nuseful for society. On the other hand, if they operate within a
\npolitical field they will never be able to become an important
\nfactor within the nation.<\/p>\n
It should be noted that out of the five organizations which
\nare based on religious affiliation, only the Moslem organization
\nhas been visibly active in public life, and has the capability of
\ninfluencing political developments of Indonesia.<\/p>\n
The remaining four have been more or less just passively
\nfollowing the turn of events. Taking this into account, it seems
\nthat this debate on intellectuals is actually a debate about the
\ndesirability of having another intellectual group with political
\npotential. It makes the political dynamics of the country more
\ncomplicated than what has been the case so far. Is this a
\ndesirable thing or not?<\/p>\n
Who should be considered \"intellectual\", and should they be
\nallowed to play an active role in political life?<\/p>\n
According to James McGregor Burns (Leadership, Harper
\nTorchboks, 1978), it is impossible to define what an intellectual
\nis. It is possible to state the main characteristics of an
\nintellectual, which are as follows. First, an intellectual is a
\ndevotee of ideas, knowledge, and values. Second, an intellectual
\nis a person concerned critically with values, purposes, and ends
\nthat transcend immediate practical needs. Third, he is a theorist
\nand a moralist at the same time -- a person who is able to deal
\nwith analytical ideas and data, and is able to work with
\nnormative ideas, and unite these two through disciplined
\nimagination.<\/p>\n
Should such a person be dissuaded from active engagement in
\npolitics? It depends on what we mean by politics. If politics is
\nperceived to mean \"mere politicking\", i.e. the sheer seizure for
\nthe power to govern, then no respectable intellectual should
\nparticipate in such activities. On the other hand, if, by this
\nword, we mean the collective search for a guarantee that society
\nis governed in the best possible way, then all intellectuals who
\nfeel responsible for the well-being of society should
\nparticipate.<\/p>\n
Another comment which requires examination is whether
\nintellectuals should confine themselves to professional
\nactivities. As I understand it, the word intellectual is not
\nidentical to the word professional. As used in today's language,
\nthis word means an occupation or vocation requiring advanced
\ntraining in a specialized field. By contrast, to be an
\nintellectual is not a vocation or occupation, it is a person's
\nset of characteristics. Not every person who is an intellectual
\nis also a professional.<\/p>\n
Physicians, lawyers and engineers are professionals, but
\nphysicists, historians and biologists are primarily scientists,
\nwhose professions depend on what they do with their specialized
\nknowledge. If they teach, then teaching is their profession. A
\nphysicist who does consulting for a living is a consultant by
\nprofession, and a physicist academically.<\/p>\n
On the basis of this understanding, it is quite possible for
\nan intellectual to be active both professionally and politically
\nin their life. Professional activism and political activism are
\nnot mutually exclusive, and are not necessarily mutually
\nantagonistic. In my view, it is unrealistic to require
\nintellectuals to confine themselves to professional activism, and
\nto refrain form political activism. And above all, no one has the
\nright, in my view, to interdict another person from expressing
\ntheir concerns about moral issues that exist in their
\nenvironment, in political act.<\/p>\n
I personally believe that an intellectual, who wishes to be
\nactive politically, should be allowed to do so. Whether they
\nexpress their political activism through organizational or
\npersonal channels is immaterial.<\/p>\n
The writer is an observer of social and political affairs.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/should-our-intellectuals-shun-politics-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }