Sifting political science from politics

By Ignas Kleden

JAKARTA (JP): A statement by political scientist Juwono Sudarsono on Sept. 8, 1997 has sparked a heated debate on the topic of civilian political leadership in Indonesia.

His point was that until 2005 the presidency in Indonesia should be held by someone firm and stable with extensive military training and field experience.

The responses to this statement demonstrate clearly a double perception on a social science proposition. Juwono is also the vice governor of the National Resilience Institute.

Is a social science proposition a purely scientific and academic one or should it be treated as a proposition which entails heavy political weight?

In this case it has been made more complicated because the proposition is put forward by a political scientist who also holds an important political position.

This case is evidence of the double character of political science in particular and social sciences in general. Those who treat the statement as a political one give political responses, trying to find out the motive as to why it was made at a time when civilians want to improve their role and participation in both everyday politics and political leadership.

Responses of this sort tend to focus on the person rather than on the statement. Does the professor have a hidden agenda? Who is masterminding the whole action? What political goal he is aiming at? Is such a statement still in accord with the corresponding articles of Indonesian law? Does such a statement cover up an argumentum ad populum (an argument which does not takes up the matter, but rather marshals the sympathy and support of the people)?

In short, these are political responses of political actors to a political statement and political stance of another political actor.

As expected, these political responses do not seem to satisfy Juwono, who sees his statement as a political science conjecture, which should be judged substantively in terms of its content and argument and not in terms of the psychological motives of the one who states it.

In other words, what is expected is a debate on the statement as a political science proposition rather than its nature as a political statement and political stance.

But is this possible?

It is not always possible to differentiate a political science proposition from a political statement proper. There are some reasons as to why this is the case.

As far as political discussion in Indonesia is concerned, it is much easier to find social science arguments which justify a political decision rather than ones which are clear and firm enough to oppose it.

To take an example, is the concept of Indonesian culture as one which is fundamentally harmony based a political concept or an anthropological and sociological concept?

Is it a political doctrine or scientific and academic conjecture?

If it is an academic proposition, why are we so often faced with the fact that the powers-that-be tend to give a quick response without providing supporting arguments which can be taken up academically?

Why don't we instead look at the findings of anthropological or sociological studies which can give scientific evidence of the existence or non-existence of this alleged harmony based culture in Indonesian communities?

There is also a more fundamental relationship between a social science proposition and the social development which it aims to describe or to analyze. There is no total separation between a social science proposition and the society which becomes its analytical object, such as is the case in natural sciences.

A prediction regarding the total lunar eclipse on Sept. 16, 1997 at midnight, for example, does not change the behavior of the moon. If the lunar eclipse really occurs, the prediction is verified, and if it does not, the prediction is falsified. There is no internal connection between astronomical prediction and the behavior of the moon.

However, if an Indonesian economist makes a statement that in three weeks there will be a devaluation of the Indonesian currency, this statement or prediction could change the whole economic and business behavior of economic actors.

The case is more direct in political science, because a political science proposition has and assumes the role of a political variable. If an Indonesian geologist predicts that in six months Mount Merapi will erupt again, the prediction will not change the behavior of Merapi.

But if a political scientist predicts that in one year there will be significant political change in Indonesia, this will have a direct impact on the political behavior of political actors and the Indonesian people.

This does not surprise anybody because in Indonesian politics this is common place. Juwono was surely not disappointed by the public response to his statement, because this reflects the double nature of political science as both an academic discipline and a political force in itself.

Social scientists may find satisfaction in being involved in political matters as long as this does not result in a conflict between the academic domain and political interest. But once this conflict emerges one must choose courageously between going the academic way or embarking upon a political career.

The writer is a sociologist based in Jakarta.