Should our intellectuals shun politics?

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): On July 28 a new organization for intellectuals was set up in the Central Java town of Purwokerto. Persatuan Cendekiawan Pembangunan Pancasila (The Union of Development- oriented Pancasila Intellectuals), a rather complicated name.

This is the sixth organization of its kind in Indonesia, after the ones created by Catholic intellectuals (1958), Protestant intellectuals (1963), Moslem intellectuals (1990), Hindu intellectuals (1991), and Buddhist intellectuals (1994).

This new organization is the only one among the six not based on religious affiliation.

Initial reactions can be divided into four categories. First, those who enthusiastically welcomed this new organization. Second, those who said that, in principle, they have no objection against this new organization. Third, those who expressed skepticism regarding the future of this new organization.

And the fourth reaction was one which explicitly objected against the use of the word Pancasila by this new organization. Supporters of this particular view maintain that the use of this word implies that only those belonging to this new organization are the true Pancasilaists.

These initial reactions were followed by more comments, which do not particularly discuss this new organization, but examine the general phenomenon of intellectuals setting up their own organizations.

Three broad comments emerged. The first comment maintains that mobilizing intellectuals to join formal organizations is a practice which is basically against the common tendency among intellectuals. Persons who consider themselves intellectuals generally dislike being herded toward uniformed opinions about anything. They prefer loose organizations, in which they can have a free exchange of information and ideas.

The second comment discusses the question of organizational involvement of intellectuals in politics. It is argued that intellectuals who want to play politics should do so without putting on an intellectual cloak. And if intellectuals want to be engaged in politics in a meaningful way, they should direct their attention to political problems that affect the foundations of national life.

One such problem is how to continually increase democratization of the political process in Indonesia, in response to the ever increasing awareness of members of society regarding their political rights and obligations. These critics also point out that, according to the hadis (stories relating to the life of Prophet Mohammed, as told by his trusted disciples), intellectuals have a moral duty which is quite similar to that of prophets: to free their respective environments of political and economic oppression.

The third comment argues that intellectuals and their organizations should confine themselves to professional activities. It is in this area that intellectual organizations can carry out activities about which they have great expertise, and through which they will generate results that are really useful for society. On the other hand, if they operate within a political field they will never be able to become an important factor within the nation.

It should be noted that out of the five organizations which are based on religious affiliation, only the Moslem organization has been visibly active in public life, and has the capability of influencing political developments of Indonesia.

The remaining four have been more or less just passively following the turn of events. Taking this into account, it seems that this debate on intellectuals is actually a debate about the desirability of having another intellectual group with political potential. It makes the political dynamics of the country more complicated than what has been the case so far. Is this a desirable thing or not?

Who should be considered "intellectual", and should they be allowed to play an active role in political life?

According to James McGregor Burns (Leadership, Harper Torchboks, 1978), it is impossible to define what an intellectual is. It is possible to state the main characteristics of an intellectual, which are as follows. First, an intellectual is a devotee of ideas, knowledge, and values. Second, an intellectual is a person concerned critically with values, purposes, and ends that transcend immediate practical needs. Third, he is a theorist and a moralist at the same time -- a person who is able to deal with analytical ideas and data, and is able to work with normative ideas, and unite these two through disciplined imagination.

Should such a person be dissuaded from active engagement in politics? It depends on what we mean by politics. If politics is perceived to mean "mere politicking", i.e. the sheer seizure for the power to govern, then no respectable intellectual should participate in such activities. On the other hand, if, by this word, we mean the collective search for a guarantee that society is governed in the best possible way, then all intellectuals who feel responsible for the well-being of society should participate.

Another comment which requires examination is whether intellectuals should confine themselves to professional activities. As I understand it, the word intellectual is not identical to the word professional. As used in today's language, this word means an occupation or vocation requiring advanced training in a specialized field. By contrast, to be an intellectual is not a vocation or occupation, it is a person's set of characteristics. Not every person who is an intellectual is also a professional.

Physicians, lawyers and engineers are professionals, but physicists, historians and biologists are primarily scientists, whose professions depend on what they do with their specialized knowledge. If they teach, then teaching is their profession. A physicist who does consulting for a living is a consultant by profession, and a physicist academically.

On the basis of this understanding, it is quite possible for an intellectual to be active both professionally and politically in their life. Professional activism and political activism are not mutually exclusive, and are not necessarily mutually antagonistic. In my view, it is unrealistic to require intellectuals to confine themselves to professional activism, and to refrain form political activism. And above all, no one has the right, in my view, to interdict another person from expressing their concerns about moral issues that exist in their environment, in political act.

I personally believe that an intellectual, who wishes to be active politically, should be allowed to do so. Whether they express their political activism through organizational or personal channels is immaterial.

The writer is an observer of social and political affairs.