Professional bodies interact to maneuver political culture

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): At first I was hopeful that the recent congress of educationists would generate stimulating discussions.

Being one of the speakers I had hoped that the three-day congress of the Indonesian Educationists Association (ISPI) in June would shed light on some of the educational problems which have hitherto eluded every attempt toward solution.

This hope quickly evaporated when I learned that the time allocated for directives by VIP's concerning questions they wanted ,addressed or principles they wanted taken into consideration, exceeded the amount of time appropriated for discussions.

Furthermore, all these speeches were to be delivered during the best hours of the day, while all discussions were relegated to either the afternoon or evening hours. This arrangement made me wonder about the real nature of this congress.

Is this congress meant to be a scholarly gathering, or is it intended to be a maneuver designed to secure a niche for educationists within the political life of the country?

This question of scholarly exercise versus political gaming is one of the problems that has confronted professional and scholarly organizations in Indonesia.

Whenever a professional or scholarly organization holds a conference the organizers always feel obliged to do a kind of political stint.

In seasoned organizations like the Association of Indonesian Economists (ISEI) the political gaming is kept to the minimum and the necessary, and ample time is given to discussing real economic issues.

At the end of the meeting there is usually a statement expressing the view of the organization regarding current economic issues of the country, which may or may not conform to the government's view.

The Association of Indonesian Physicians (IDI) does the same whenever it is holding its annual congress.

In less seasoned professional organizations the scenario is different. Here the political game is usually played to the maximum at the expense of the real professional deliberations.

And what ensues at the end usually amounts to no more than a declaration of support for the policies already adopted by the government.

What does this phenomenon signify?

In my view it shows that the relationship between the community of scholars and the government can be defined in different ways.

The more professional organizations seem to base their relationship toward the government on the basis of their clear perception concerning the specific competence and the professional service they can render to the society. It is a relationship characterized by professional self-confidence.

The less seasoned organizations, on the other hand, seem to lack this clear picture concerning their specific professional competence and role within the society. Consequently, they cannot clearly formulate the boundary between their specific professional role and the more or less general political role that every organization in this country has to play. Hence the extensive political declaration with the minimum professional substance.

I have the impression that this situation is a modern expression of a classical problem existing in many Islamic societies, including the Islamic part of the Indonesian society. It is the problem of defining the relationship between ulemas (scholars) and umaras (rulers).

It is a very delicate problem and, throughout Indonesian history from the pre-colonial period until today, it has been demonstrated that this relationship could take different forms. At certain times within Indonesian history this relationship was amiable and cooperative, but at other times it was utterly antagonistic and competitive.

Between 1945 and 1949, for instance, we were witnessing one of the most harmonious relationship between scholars --both religious and secular ones-- and the government. But during the reign of King Amangkurat I, who ruled the Kingdom of Mataram from 1646 to 1677, this relationship was at its worst. The climax was the mass murder of Islamic scholars ordered by King Amangkurat I at the end of his reign.

What is the ideal relationship that can realistically be established between communities of scholars and the government?

I do not know, but I had a unique experience in this respect that can be used as a guide to answer this question. Back in 1970, if I am not mistaken, a friend of mine was a minister within the cabinet. He honestly admitted the limitations of his scholarly and professional abilities, and asked a number of friends he considered more knowledgeable in his field to help him. He once said "You guys have the knowledge and ability to analyze problems and formulate solutions, and I have the power to make political decisions. Why don't we work together for the benefit of the country?"

I thought at the time that this was a very courageous and generous attitude. Admitting the limitations of one's competence while one is in power is a very honest and courageous step. And inviting people from outside the bureaucracy to share the political privilege of viewing the problems and making deliberations leading to decisions is a very generous step.

It is true that at the end it was him who made all the decisions, but the fact that he invited people he considered competent to share the process was a very daring step.

Can this example be used as a guide in our search for the ideal relationship between 'scholars' and 'rulers'?

Maybe! But the prerequisite is mutual trust. Without such trust it is inconceivable to develop such a working relationship. And each side must be worthy of the trust.

Each community of scholars must demonstrate a convincing professional competence to win such trust. And each 'ruler' must show convincingly that he or she is willing to share his or her power to win the trust of true professionals.

The writer is rector of the Muhammadiyah University.