Sifting political science from politics

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.