Practical politics not for students?

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): What is "practical politics" (politik praktis)?

To be honest, I have no idea. What I know is that since it was first launched by Admiral (ret.) Sudomo, this term has never been clearly defined. Thus it can mean different things to different people. It means one thing to the minister of education and culture and it apparently means another thing to demonstrating students.

In my understanding, in our daily lives the word politics has been used to denote activities aimed at obtaining the right to govern, to administer, to manage, or to lead an organizational unit. This unit can be a state or a country, a business empire or a company, or a university campus. Depending upon the kind of organizational unit one has in mind when one competes for the right to govern, one can be involved in either state politics, business politics, or campus politics.

It is thus entirely untrue that there is no politics within university life. Competition among students to become chairperson of the students' council is a political act. Campaigning by professors to win the position of university rector is also a political act. And urging members of the university administrative staff to vote Golkar during the general election campaign is also a political act. Thus anyone who insists that universities must be free from political activities must either be dishonest or a real fool.

Is the term politik praktis a valid term? Not in my opinion. If this were a valid concept, then this word must have an antonym, which must be "theoretical politics". Is there such a thing? I don't think so. All politics is practical. You compete for something concrete, something tangible. Thus the word practical in the term "practical politics" is completely redundant. Why then do we keep this stupid word? Again, that is politics.

What is the purpose of the ministerial decree to prohibit university students from conducting "practical politics" within their campuses? My guess is that this regulation is designed to paralyze the students' current political activism.

The government does not want students to be exercising their political rights, which in any democratic country are an inalienable component of every citizen's basic rights. It would be well to remember in this connection that politics is, according to Vaclav Havel, "simply a matter of serving those around us, serving the community, and serving those who will come after us". And John F.Kennedy went even further by saying that "Political action is the highest responsibility of a citizen."

Why then is politics looked upon as en evil? It is because the government wants students to be politically meek and docile, accepting and supporting the government's stance on everything. The government does not want the students to be critical and corrective.

This is a myopic policy, in my opinion. This policy does not take into account the long-term effect of "political domestication" of university students. This policy disregards, and disrespects even the historical fact that students' political activism at any time always constitutes the embryo of a political generation that eventually will carry out reforms.

This historical relationship between students' political movements and a country's political dynamics is a phenomenon which can be observed not only in Indonesia, but in other countries as well. In Japan, Korea, China, Vietnam, India, Iran, Egypt, Mexico, Chile, and the United States, among others, we can see the same phenomenon at different points in history.

Viewed from this perspective, prohibiting students to be involved in political activism means a premeditated abortion of the embryo of a political generation for the future. We made this mistake before, i.e. when the Ministry of Education and Culture implemented the NKK policy (Normalisasi Kehidupan Kampus, meaning Normalization of Campus Life).

I still remember how that policy suffocated university students and professors alike in their thinking about the political problems of the country and how it crippled the lives of all students' organizations. We must thank God that particular policy did not kill the political elan of younger generation's students, and that we now have a generation of students with remarkable political vitality.

The rationale given to justify this myopic policy has usually been that students' political activism distracts them from fulfilling their main duty, namely to study. It is only natural for any government or regime to demand that students and universities live their academic lives in an orderly and vigorous manner.

But such an expectation is valid only for normal times, i.e. times when the national environment is tranquil and orderly. The reality is that at the moment we are living in a time of political tremor and anomaly. Both the Indonesian public and the international community have lost confidence in the current national leadership. This has been caused by political abuses that were hidden in the past behind the screen of pseudo- stability and pseudo-prosperity. Now that the screen covering those abuses has been blown away, no honest-thinking person has any confidence left in the present leadership.

In such a situation it is unrealistic to expect students and universities to be orderly in the traditional way. The order that can be expected to emerge during this tumultuous time is a different kind of order, i.e. an order that gives room for every active search for a political system that can effectively and in timely fashion block any attempt toward power abuse. This is an order, which is corrective without being destructive.

Can this kind of order be established through mere commands? Can rectors and deans assisted by their respective deputies create this kind of order? And can this kind of order be achieved through the use of force? I doubt it. This kind of order can come about only if students and professors are personally committed to certain values. It cannot be established by commanding obedience of any values.

Perhaps it is useful to reflect on what Mao Zedong said in 1966: "Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed." I do not think that one has to be a communist to find wisdom in this statement.

Thus, how do we look at this problem of student demonstrations? Is it a political problem which has to be solved with bloodshed, or is it a war of ideas which can be solved without shedding a single drop of blood?

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.

Window: Why then is politics looked upon as en evil? It is because the government wants students to be politically meek and docile, accepting and supporting the government's stance on everything.