CSIS requires reorientation

The Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) needs to build a new image more oriented to the public interest, says Azyumardi Azra, rector of the Syarif Hidayatullah Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN). He spoke to The Jakarta Post's contributorRikza Abdullah on the occasion of CSIS's 30th anniversary.

Question: Do you think that CSIS, as a center for policy- oriented studies, is still effective?

Answer: Its influence on government policies was very strong during its early period of operation because its founders were very close to the power-holders. But the change of personnel in the government has meant the substantial decline of its influence on the direction of government policies. However, CSIS, through its studies, continues to provide important contributions to decision-makers.

The CSIS founders were directly or indirectly involved in the establishment of the New Order government. Can the results of their studies remain relevant and applicable for Indonesia?

Their studies on certain subjects, such as foreign affairs and Asian Pacific economics are still relevant and can make valuable contributions to the country. However, the results of their studies will not influence government policies effectively because they are no longer involved in the circle of power- holders. Anyway, being independent from the center of power is another advantage for a research center.

Because CSIS used to support the development-oriented New Order, won't its researchers be trapped in the developmentalist approach (e.g. stressing economic growth, centralization of power, business and organization) in making recommendations?

It's true that substantial changes have happened in Indonesia. CSIS's recommendations on economic and foreign affairs were influential when developmentalism was dominant in the country. But recent changes, particularly on democratization, the promotion of autonomy and decentralization, will probably force CSIS to reorientate its approach and identify new and relevant issues for their research activities if they want to sustain their operations.

How do you see the closeness of CSIS with the government under the country's new, different leadership?

During the Soeharto era, CSIS was very close to the government until the end of the 1980s. Its influence on government policies started to decline in the 1990s when the government paid more attention to recommendations from the Association of Indonesian Muslim Intellectuals (ICMI), the Center for Information and Development Studies (Cides) and some other think-tanks. The decline of CSIS's influence continued during B.J. Habibie's one- year government (1998-1999).

During the government of president Abdurrahman Wahid (November 1999-July 2001), who was very close to CSIS, the center held a good opportunity to play a greater role in policy-making, but it failed to grab the chance due to his controversial leadership. Abdurrahman's controversial way of leading the country even encouraged some CSIS researchers, such as Kusnanto Anggoro and Hadi Soesastro, to criticize him.

Megawati Soekarnoputri's government seems to be more interested in the voices of independent researchers such as the think-tank of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) as well as the State Secretariat.

Does CSIS have any bias to any political party, business group, religious organization or to any certain ideology?

In business, CSIS is apparently inclined to support the formal sector, which is dominated by conglomerates. I hardly see CSIS supporting discussion on the public economy. Discussion on the public economy is generally supported by Cides and the economist Mubyarto. Because most conglomerates happen to be owned by Chinese Indonesians, CSIS seems to, whether intentionally or unintentionally, support Chinese-owned businesses. And because owners of formal businesses collaborated with the government during the Soeharto era, there appeared a perception that CSIS was closer to the government than the people.

In its early days, some intellectuals suspected the research institution to be inclined toward Christianity but since the 1990s it has apparently become more cautious on religious issues and tried to assert its independence. Its closeness to Abdurrahman Wahid was not based on religious considerations but because he was championed for supporting minorities.

In its ideology, CSIS personnel seem to follow secularism and humanism.

Do you see the advantages of CSIS as compared to other think- tanks?

One of its advantages over the others is that it hires full- time researchers with adequate credentials. As a result, the institution is able not only to carry out its functions very well but also to publish academically. Its researchers also gain wider publication by the press because they are always available for comment on emerging issues. In comparison, other institutions that claim to be think-tanks generally hire researchers who only moonlight for them.

You said CSIS needs to reorientate itself in order to face future developments. Could you elaborate on that?

CSIS executives and researchers must build a new image to show that they are really independent, non-partisan and support the public interest. Then they must identify and discuss big issues that are now up for public debate -- such as how Indonesia can recover from the economic crisis and how to rebuild national integration.

Do you think CSIS, with its current human recourses, is able to do that?

The problems faced by the nation are so big and span such a wide variety that CSIS, based on the strengths of its personnel, seems to have to select certain issues for coverage in their studies. CSIS can face future challenges because it has a collective intellectual leadership.