Contributions and controversies of 30-year-old CSIS

In conjunction with the 30th anniversary of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), The Jakarta Post's staff writer Harry Bhaskara talks to Dr. Hadi Soesastro, executive director of the well-known think tank in Indonesia.

Question: What has the CSIS achieved in its 30 years of existence?

Answer: It is not easy to answer this question. CSIS's mission is to give input to decision-makers on policy-making through policy-oriented studies. But, as with any think tank, not only in Indonesia, it is difficult to measure its impact.

Only if you make detailed studies on specific policies or unless the study is done by the government and it is also specific are you are able to affect a policy.

The reason is that some of the decision-makers have other sources of input. You cannot claim (this or that decision) is linked to your input. Especially so in Indonesia, it is very difficult culturally to claim that you have affected a particular policy.

But isn't CSIS regarded as quite influential?

Perhaps, the studies we are doing, or our relationships touch quite a broad sector of society domestically as well as abroad.

On very specific issues like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) we have been involved since the very beginning. We are one of a few institutions that continues to observe ASEAN development. I think we make some impact.

CSIS helped materialize the first ASEAN-wide conference in 1974 and since then we have given substantial input to the process.

We have developed this process through the development of nongovernmental institutions, with the establishment of the ASEAN Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ASEAN ISIS), interactively and regularly based on ASEAN.

In the area of regional cooperation, regional security, I think our input has been more direct and can be more easily measured; but not on domestic politics because policy-making is much more diffused.

Looking back, what has not been accomplished?

We continuously formulate our research agenda on an annual basis. Since last year, we have concentrated more on outreach programs to engage the public and encourage debate on public policy issues through publications, commentaries, seminars and public lectures.

I think we can do more in that regard. We have been able to engage government officials, the young generation, students. We have less linkage with political parties and the legislature.

Why?

It is not easy, because political parties and the legislature do not need these kind of things. They seldom answer our invitations.

Couldn't it be because CSIS was considered controversial in the past?

No, because other institutions, like the economic think tank of the University of Indonesia (LPEM UI) have experienced the same thing.

But do you think the controversy persists?

I don't think it is an issue. Those issues are gone now, may be it persists among some of the older generation.

How many think tanks does a country like Indonesia need?

Indonesia needs a lot of think tanks as it is a very complex country, but unfortunately it only has a few.

Worse still, the existing ones do not even compete with each other as they focus on different areas of studies.

Sometimes we thought there was some competition with other think tanks, for example, the LPEM UI, but it has turned out not to be the case. Their field of study was so big. Even competition should be good. But again, the market is not an open one.

In contrast to the United States, think tanks compete for contracts. It is an open market, but not here. On this point I have to be careful.

What do you mean?

In the past, government ministries also offered research contracts but of course the results of the studies were not used. It was simply because they had money and they wanted to use the money. Now, understandably because of the crisis, the government, does not have enough money.

There was a time when the government opened a bid on a number of research contracts but this decision did not last. Research institutions had to give in to universities as the government believed that an open bid would leave universities in cold water.

Thus, at one point, the government changed its ruling. So, if you are talking about the market, it never develops.

Could you describe the role of think tanks in other countries?

It differs from one country to another. Perhaps the most developed ones are those in the Philippines, not even in Singapore.

In Singapore there is much more of a captive market. The government of Singapore has established institutions that they don't make use of, or they use them only in a limited sense because the government of Singapore has very good in-house capabilities.

The best human resources are inside the government. Those outside it can never compete. They have high quality people and don't need to go out. They have institutions to tap information for the government, they make use of these institutions.

In contrast, the Indonesian government can't attract the best and brightest. It was not the case in the 1970s. Now the best resources are in institutions like the World Bank and others.

You touched on the market for think tank products, could you elaborate?

In the absence of an open market, like that in the United States, personal relationships play an important factor.

Think tanks also differ in the way they procure their financial means. Some think tanks are very commercial.

CSIS doesn't engage in contracts, all revenues are generated in-house.

What are the immediate programs of the CSIS?

Intensive networking with other think tanks. For example, in the context of ASEAN ISIS, we require about 10 networking functions a year. Programs include a joint research project, book publishing, the setting up of memorandums.

Also, extensive networking through regional forums like the Asia Pacific Economic Council that involves 23 countries, through the Council for Security Cooperation, whose secretariat is in Indonesia and the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council.

What is the role of a think tank in a country ridden by multiple crisis?

Think tanks supply ideas, but in many countries whether a think tank will succeed or not will pretty much depend on the demand for policy advice. This changes from time to time.

In countries like Indonesia and in many neighboring countries relations between policy-makers and the advisory professions are very underdeveloped as most of them are based on personal relationships.

Changes of people in the policy field changes the nature of relationships with advisory professions; even in countries like the United States, personal relationships are influential although it is not as tight as those in developing countries.

Ideally, you want relationships to be based on a more institutional mechanism. This is not easy, it is the function of a society's maturity once the public demand it.