Between nepotism, professionalism

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.