Democracy in Indonesia seen trough the eyes of a scholar

This is the second of two articles based on an excerpt from Prof. Arief Budiman's Inaugural Professorial Lecture delivered on Oct. 9, 1997 at the University of Melbourne to mark his chairmanship of the Indonesian Studies Program at the university.

MELBOURNE: To come back again to the question: Does democracy exist in Indonesia? And if it does, what kind?

The answer to the first question is yes and no. Democratic situations come and go. Sometimes, people can openly criticize the powers that be. General elections are conducted regularly. Public debates can be conducted, although these activities need written permission from the police.

However, when the government thinks that these activities may lead into some kind of socio-political unrest that may put society in some sort of crisis, this democratic situation can instantly be halted. Some people are arrested, some newspapers are banned, and public speaking is suddenly stopped.

So, if "democracy" exists at all, it is mainly the top-down type. That is, democracy is "loaned" to the people by the powerful state.

However, this situation is now in the process of changing. Civil society has been getting stronger politically and has been more able to challenge state power. The top-down democracy is in the process of being replaced by the bottom-up one.

People have become more impatient, and they now dare to openly oppose the government. As a result, social unrest has occurred more frequently. The government then has to use its repressive apparatus to regain control over the situation, which over time has become more difficult for it to do.

What then are the position and role of Indonesian scholars in this situation?

Science is an activity pursuing knowledge that will lead to truth. To be a scholar is simply to be a man of science in pursuit of such knowledge. Problems occur because knowledge is a political thing.

What does it mean by knowledge is political? Having a certain kind of knowledge may threaten some people, while at the same time it may empower other people.

In this sense, as Jurgen Habermas and Michael Foucault have long pointed out, knowledge is a social construction that can't be separated from power.

In a society where the possession of certain knowledge might threaten state power, this knowledge has to be hidden somewhere by the state. This particular knowledge is thus considered to be subversive.

In this society it is not easy to work as a neutral scientist, especially as a social scientist who deals directly with social and political problems.

When we talk about the relationship between scholar, power and society, we are talking about the intellectual. I would argue, in a country like Indonesia, it is difficult for a scholar to avoid becoming an intellectual. Especially scholars in social sciences that deal with socio-political issues.

Does an intellectual have to be a scholar?

It is not necessary for an intellectual to be a scholar graduated from a higher educational institution. The concern for the ultimate truth and the betterment of society and humanity is the essence of the intellectual.

The concept of an intellectual has been contrasted with the technocrat. The technocrat is a scientist or specialist. Technocrats work as technicians in their field without further concern for things outside their specialization.

They just want to get things done. They are tools whose knowledge can be used by anybody, and, they do not question the broader purpose of the project they are working on.

In contrast, the intellectual, unlike the technocrat, uses his/her knowledge to seek the ultimate truth. If the technocrat is the doer, the intellectual is the philosopher, looking for "a relationship between the self and the essential". The intellectual is looking for meaning, relating life to the aim of its creation.

In this sense intellectuals always have great concern for the development of the society and the direction this society is heading in.

It is exactly because of this concern, that the person who plays the role of an intellectual puts himself/herself in a difficult situation vis-a-vis the powers that be, especially against the state that misuses its power. This kind of power is still around in many (Third World) countries. In these situations, an intellectual has the duty to criticize this kind of power.

Some intellectuals, as well as some priests, go even further by involving themselves in the practical struggle to correct the situation and realize the truth that they believe in. If this happens, these concerned intellectuals are then carrying out the role of the intelligentsia.

Members of the intelligentsia differ from the intellectuals who sit in an armchair in their quiet room appreciating joy "in the practice of an art or a science of metaphysical speculation". Members of the intelligentsia do more practical things to change the real world with both their ideas and actions. In this sense, members of the intelligentsia are close to politicians.

Politician do have worldly interests in the sense that they need the political power attained by securing a place in the state bureaucracy, whether in the executive or legislative branch of government.

The intelligentsia are between the intellectuals and the politicians, although it is difficult to draw a sharp line between the intelligentsia, the intellectual, and the politician.

In reality, the term intelligentsia is used interchangeably with the term intellectual. The term politician is much easier to differentiate from that of intellectual and intelligentsia.

It is public knowledge that many government officials have abused their power for personal benefit. Information about this will endanger their position. In order to keep their power, these public officials have to select what information is made public and what is not.

In the first instance, action is directed against the media by censoring the information they publish or broadcast. Later, public talks, seminars and discussions have to be censored too, including those that are conducted on campus. The government reinterprets the concept of academic freedom.

The keyword to justify this censorship is "responsibility". Freedom is "allowed" by the government, including academic freedom and freedom of the press. However, this freedom has to be carried out with "responsibility".

"Irresponsible" freedom is dangerous for the good of the nation as a whole, so people that are accused of using their freedom irresponsibly, can be punished by the state.

Who has the right to make this interpretation? The government monopolizes this right. The definition of what is responsible freedom and what is not rests in the hands of the government. These terms are thus undemocratically defined.

In this situation, it is very difficult for scholars, especially social scientists, to express what they believe. Everything they say or write could be interpreted as being irresponsible, especially when it is criticism against the powers that be.

It is then quite natural if many scholars prefer to keep their mouths shut and choose the role of technocrat. They work only following the orders of the person who is the head of the project. They work professionally, following their expertise, but they never question whether the project is good for the whole of society. They act as tools only.

However, some scholars may not be able to follow this path. These scholars are not able to just keep quiet, because as highly educated people, it is not easy for them to avoid their conscience as intellectuals. This is the start of their conflict with the existing ruler.

This situation is very different with the scholars, at least in theory, in Western countries where democracy prevails. There scholars can practically say anything they want, as long as they do not defame anyone. The government may not like it, but they can't do much.

In such a society, different ideas and opinions are tolerated. They are not considered to be dangerous and subversive. Therefore, there is no danger when a scholar plays the role of an intellectual-cum-intelligentsia at the same time. Even when they criticize the government, they are not considered to be political dissidents that have to be dealt with politically.

The above description is of course an ideal picture of Western society. It is not totally true. However, it is difficult to deny that in many Western societies, some kind of democracy does exist. The government, even when it is very powerful, has its power somewhat limited. This is not the situation in many Third World countries including Indonesia. The situation is much worse there.

In a country like Indonesia, scholars have to be careful and have to make a choice whether they want to play it safe and become technocrats, or become concerned with the welfare of society and take the role of intellectual-cum-intelligentsia.

Many of them have chosen the technocrat role for their personal safety and career, even though their discipline obliges them to say what they think is the truth about the socio- political problems of society.

If they don't do this, most often they will come into conflict with the government. They prefer to be considered not honest and to have betrayed their vocation as good social scientists.

This condition may have given rise to a joke popular among intellectuals in Indonesia: According to experts Indonesian people have three main characteristics. These are intelligent, honest and pro-government.

Unfortunately, each Indonesian can only have two of these three characteristics, the joke goes.

So, when somebody is honest and pro-government, he or she must not be intelligent.

If he or she is intelligent and pro-government, he or she must not be honest.

If he or she is intelligent and honest, he or she must not be pro-government.

This reflects the condition of scholars in the present Indonesia. Since scholars are considered as intelligent people, therefore those who are pro-government are considered dishonest.

In many Third World countries, honest social scientists can't avoid playing the role of the intellectual-cum-intelligentsia.

They are very politicized not because they want to be, but because politics have stepped into their academic forum on campus. They then become, in the eyes of the government, political dissidents.

The road taken by the intellectuals is the "one less traveled". It is a road full of dangerous risks. It is a road that sometimes even your close friends and immediate family may fail to appreciate in the present world in which pragmatism rules.

The road of the intellectual is indeed a lonely road.