Should our intellectuals shun politics?

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.