Amien Rais, a victim of outspokenness and politicking

By Arief Budiman

SALATIGA, Central Java (JP): All of a sudden, Dr. Amien Rais, the chairperson of Muhammadiyah, had to give away his prestigious position as the Head of the Council of Experts of the Association of Moslem Intellectuals (ICMI). According to ICMI chairperson, Dr. B.J. Habibie, it was Rais himself who asked to resign due to his heavy workload as the chair of Muhammadiyah, the second biggest Moslem organization in Indonesia. ICMI understood his intention and accepted his resignation.

However, according to outside rumors, ICMI was pressured by the government to expel Rais due to his critical statements against government policies over Freeport and the Busang gold mines. It is understood that a number of tycoons, both local and foreign, are involved in these gold mines, including the children of the president. Although Habibie strongly denied that there was any connection between Rais' resignation and his earlier criticisms, the rumors persist.

People argue, if workload is the problem, Habibie himself has a much bigger workload than Rais, and he has maintained his chairmanship of ICMI.

The rumors intensified after Rais himself made some ambiguous statements. After meeting with Habibie, he admitted he had asked for the resignation and said there was no pressure whatsoever. However, he also said: "There are some speculations, and they could be true or false. I leave it to you, with your own wisdom, to judge them." (Kompas, Feb. 25).

People close to Rais also made some ambiguous comments, suggesting that pressure had been at work. Dr. Syafii Maarif, a close friend of Rais and also deputy of Muhammadiyah said that if ICMI was part of the government's power foundation, and Rais' critical mind could not be tolerated by the power that be, it was better for Rais to resign (Kompas, Feb. 26). All these statements have fueled speculations that Rais had indeed been pressured to leave ICMI.

If this is true, there are two interesting questions to ask. First, what is the ideal relationship between intellectual and organization? Is an organization for intellectuals like ICMI theoretically plausible? Second, what will be the future of ICMI (as well as other intellectual organizations), especially its relationship with the government? Is it still possible to be independent?

When ICMI was established in 1990, there was a heated debate on whether intellectuals should join such an organization. An intellectual has always been an individual who has an independent mind and is able to express their opinion without compromising it with the rules of the organization. Some intellectuals have expressed their doubt about the possibility of unifying intellectuals in an organization, except if the organization serves only as a social meeting place. Unlike other intellectual organizations set up by the Christians and the Hindus, ICMI is not satisfied only being a place for social gatherings. It has further reaching political agendas.

As the case of Amien Rais unfolded, this question re-emerged. Despite the criticism, Rais is carrying on his mission as an intellectual. Hence, the case has enhanced Rais' quality as an intellectual. He has gained more respect because he succeeds in demonstrating his integrity as an intellectual, saying what he considers the truth without compromising. However, at the same time, he has fallen into the category of "problematic figures" in the government's list.

To be fair, we can't completely blame the decision to oust him if we follow the logic of organization. It is difficult to separate between the opinion of Rais as a person and as an important figure of the organization. It is also difficult to avoid the impression that ICMI has been supportive of his opinion. It is very unfortunate that the opinion expressed by Rais is very critical against the government, the most powerful political institution in the country. It is only logical when the government starts to put pressure upon this organization, and there is no choice for the organization except to protect its "bigger interest" by asking Rais to resign.

In other words, there is a contradiction between the freedom of intellectuals as an individual and the collective responsibility of a member of an organization. Balance has to be sought between the two.

The second question deals with the future of ICMI. Would it be able to maintain its integrity and independency as an intellectual organization? There are many factors that make it look impossible for ICMI to do this.

First, at present the New Order government dominated by the military is the strongest political institution. Any organization, in order to exist, has to play within this system of domination. Even Gus Dur (Abdurrahman Wahid) with the Nahdlatul Ulama has to cleverly maneuver within this system in order to survive. True, some organizations do exist outside the system, they even try to change the system. PDI led by Megawati Soekarnoputri, PUDI led by Sri Bintang Pamungkas are two cases in point. They still survive, but they have to work extra hard to do this, mobilizing all possible forces to protect themselves including the international forces. ICMI clearly wants to play within the system, so they have to sacrifice Amien Rais.

Second, more than any other organization, ICMI depends heavily on the government's political and financial support in order to exist and expand. Therefore, for members of ICMI to criticize the government sharply as Rais did means to bite the hands that feed it. It does make sense from the logic of the organization when Dawam Rahardjo, one of the deputy chairpersons of ICMI, said that Rais should take a "softer stance". He added: "I think it would be better if Amien speaks less on political issues." (The Jakarta Post, Feb. 26). It is obvious that politics means critical comments against the government. If Rais still wants to voice his criticism against the government, he should join other suitable organizations, or play it by himself as an independent intellectual.

But another interesting question arises. Would Rais survive as head of Muhammadiyah? Even though ICMI is more independent than Muhammadiyah politically and financially, Muhammadiyah has chosen to play within the existing system. A rival leader of Rais in Muhammadiyah, Lukman Harun, has seized this golden opportunity to attack Rais' critical comments against the government. He maintained that Muhammadiyah must not play politics, because this organization is a religious and educational organization, not a political one. (Kompas, Feb. 27).

It is clear that Lukman will play this "government support" card as he tries to enhance his position. In the past in other organizations, this kind of card has proven very effective except in the rare case of Gus Dur when his rival Abu Hassan failed to dethrone him. However, Gur Dur has had to work hard until now, to erase the image that he is not supported by the government. His handshake with the president, his recent encounter with Mbak Tutut, the president's daughter, is part of this effort. Even Gus Dur has to play the same card because this is the only game possible within the existing system.

What will happen to Amien Rais? Will he go back to the world of organization and compromise his ideas to the "bigger interest" of ICMI? Or will he choose the lonely path of an intellectual who speaks what he thinks to be the truth? Time will only tell.

The writer is a sociologist and a researcher based in Salatiga.