Practical politics not for students?

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.