Between nepotism, professionalism

By Ignas Kleden

JAKARTA (JP): Nepotism, whether transparent or not, has become a sensitive issue in Indonesia. From the selection of members of the House of Representatives to university management personnel, as is the case with the University of Riau, it appears the primordial tendency toward reliance on family relations is still very strong. It is important to examine some patterns of nepotism to see whether it is beneficial, or whether it leads to an unproductive situation.

From a psychological perspective, nepotism demonstrates an attitude which is open to things familiar, but becomes awkward in the face of something new. Nepotism is a sort of unconscious horror of novelties. It implies an unwillingness, or even an inability, to learn something new from situations which are as yet unknown. This is why people with nepotistic tendencies tend to employ those who are already known in the family circle, despite their inabilities, rather than those who are not known personally but have greater potential and capacity.

People with nepotistic tendencies do not have the courage to deal with the uncertainty which might promise better results, and choose to rely on a secure situation though this may bring only low achievement. In other words, psychological security is deemed much higher than social, economic or political risk and achievement.

From an epistemological perspective, this attitude contradicts the whole progress of knowledge. Knowledge, particularly scientific knowledge, proceeds from the already known to the as yet unknown. If one sticks only to knowledge which is already available and proved, one will certainly fall short of the new knowledge which can only be attained if one has the courage to enter the scientific terra incognita and find ways to obtain new knowledge and new understanding.

Nepotism becomes most interesting, however, from a sociological phenomenon. There is an ongoing debate in sociology concerning the relationship between what one thinks and believes and the social position one assumes in a social environment. Is it possible, for example, for somebody from the upper-middle class in Jakarta to understand the aspirations of peasants in Central Java or the social conditions of workers in the factories in Tangerang? Is it possible for an urban dweller from a well-off family to empathize with the conflicts which beset the people in Irian Jaya who have been deprived of their land?

One school of thought which gives great importance to such relationships is the class theory. The underlying assumption, put simply, is that the way one thinks and the subjects preoccupying one's mind are basically reflections of one's position in the social class. Thinking, reflection, ideology and the taste for art are mental references to one's belonging to a certain social class. In this sense, a worker can only think in a proletarian way and a man who has capital at his or her disposal will think in a bourgeois way. Nobody can think against their social class, since thinking is only a function of the social-economic struggle which emerges from class differences and class conflict.

Of course such a position becomes very controversial in both sociological and philosophical debates. The question is: why is mental and intellectual capacity so dependent on the historical context? Is there no possibility of the human mind with its reflective capacity to detach itself from socio-economics?

The relationship between one's mental ability and one's social position is evident in the issue of nepotism. I believe that nepotism is nothing but the belief that one's mental ability is related to one's position, not in the social class, but in kinship relations. Those who share the same kinship are supposed to have a relatively equal mental-set. It is easier for members of the same kinship system to understand each other, to communicate and cooperate. Those who are related either by blood or by marriage are in a better position to do things together.

Of course there is nothing wrong with a social organization which is based on kinship relations. However, this is only possible where all the values and norms are produced within a kinship system. A modern society can be defined in various ways, but one of the main criteria is that formal and public relations are regulated not by kinship relations but by law. One's political status is not ascribed by one's position in genealogical relations, but is achieved by one's contribution to public life. The economic position one can enjoy is not provided and guaranteed by privileges handed down to gain control over the available means of production.

Nepotism is a phenomenon of traditional leanings towards primordial sentiments and primordial relations. Kinship is comparable to one belonging to the same district or province, to the same religion, or people speaking the same language. Such primordial sentiments and relations are not unfavorable, but are misleading if they become the basis on which to build and to develop professional relations. Primordial sentiments are an important harbor for psychological and cultural security. However, it is difficult to assume they can become the criteria for the selection of people for positions which require technical know-how and professional or managerial capacities.

In the case of positions which require special technical expertise there is hardly any opportunity to develop nepotism. One cannot become a surgeon on the basis of being a relative of a very important person. However, the selection among some medical specialists for a position can be made on the basis of a nepotistic relation. A surgeon with a lesser capacity but with a direct relation to people in power can be selected for the position of chief of a surgical department over a colleague with better capacities.

This shows that even in strictly technical matters there is always room for political maneuver, because the power element always exists in the decision-making process. The common expectation is that a decision is based on objective criteria. However, this is different from scientific conclusion. In scientific affairs, one can only form a conclusion from the preceding premises. If one does it against the premises, the conclusion is proved wrong.

Political decision-making, however, can be based on the preceding premises (for example on the available and controllable data) but can also be made against the premises. In the latter case, the decision must not necessarily be wrong because politics concerns what should be done in the face of the existing reality. The premises in politics are not only empirical in nature but are also valued.

An example in Indonesian modern history is the debate about the nature of national independence among Indonesian founding fathers. Sjahrir forcefully proposed that there should be a period for remote and approximate preparation for national independence, this consisting mainly of the training and education of administrative and political elite. Soekarno, on the contrary, believed that preparation could be achieved after independence and not before it.

Nepotism is basically a value premise and not an empirical one. It consists of the belief and inclination that people who know each other and are related personally will be better able to cooperate professionally. The personal relationship becomes very important in considering nepotism. But this contradicts modern bureaucracy, which depends not on personal relations but rather on impersonal relations in technical and legal procedures. Bureaucracy becomes a formalization of human relations, which takes the form of formal, legal and impersonal arrangements.

However, in a society in which personal communication plays such an important role as is the case with Indonesia, interpersonal acquaintance can help in many regards. The human situation is entirely different from the nepotistic situation. Modern humanism is an effort to extend our appreciation of a human being far beyond the confinement of primordial sentiments and primordial bondage.

In this sense, nepotism can be viewed from two angles. First, nepotism is an inclination to fall back to the narrow interpretation of human relations, which is traditionally primordial. It does not promote human encounters and human appreciation which is stipulated in our basic philosophy, Pancasila. Second, nepotism is a tendency to give preference to psychological agreeableness despite technical inefficiency and psychological uneasiness and difficulties. If we choose the first we are trapped in a soft state in the view of Gunnar Myrdal, but if we choose the second we meet one of the basic requirements of modern bureaucracy as proposed by Max Weber.