Amien Rais, a victim of outspokenness and politicking

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.