CSIS requires reorientation

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.