Some scholars enter politics ...

Some scholars enter politics ...

By Santi W.E. Soekanto

JAKARTA (JP): To co-opt or not to co-opt, that seems to be the
question underlying the involvement of intellectuals in political
parties -- for which an answer may not be so easy to find.

Other questions also arise: Do intellectuals betray their
"mission" when they enter politics? Can they really serve as
critics and watchdogs of the power holders' legitimacy? Or will
they be "eroded" and dragged by the vortex of political currents?

Several recent occurrences may illustrate the thin line
intellectuals tread when they choose to leave academics and enter
politics.

The first example was the 1993 "co-optation" of a noted young
intellectual from the Muhammadiyah Moslem organization by the
ruling political grouping, Golkar.

When accused of abandoning his intellectual idealism as well
as his Islamic vision by joining Golkar, the scholar defended
himself by saying he never sought the appointment.

"I never applied. They (the party) have already sent me a
membership card," said Din Syamsuddin of the Muhammadiyah Youth,
eventually appointed to head a department in Golkar's executive
board.

Another illustration may be taken from the more recent public
debates about how the existing associations of intellectuals,
mostly established according to religion, have allegedly
encouraged the emergence of sectarian politics.

Minister of Transmigration Siswono Yudohusodo, also a former
student leader, accused the associations, including the powerful
Moslem-based ICMI which enjoys President Soeharto's patronage, of
abandoning their idealism and engaging in "practical politics" to
further their interests.

Chairman of ICMI (Association of the All Indonesian Moslem
Intellectuals) B.J. Habibie, who is also the State Minister of
Research and Technology and a close confidant of President
Soeharto, denied the accusation. He said ICMI members who get
involved in politics do so on their own.

The debates died down, but they were never completely
resolved.

Lessons can also be learned if one observes how a political
scientist started to publish articles explicitly in support of a
certain faction in the conflict-ridden PPP.

Or by watching how a well-known political analyst in Jakarta
started publishing articles which some thought were invariably in
favor of the government's actions. A well-informed source told
the press that this same analyst can no longer provide objective
analysis because he, too, is "an actor in the whole political
game here".

Several intellectuals who have chosen to enter politics
through joining Golkar or the two political parties, the United
Development Party (PPP) and the Indonesian Democratic Party
(PDI), naturally defend their stance and what they call their
contribution to democratization.

Prof. Dr. Marsetio Donoseputro, a former rector of the
Surabaya-based Airlangga University and Golkar's current
legislator in the House of Representatives (DPR), said he joined
the political grouping because he wanted to contribute his
knowledge and analytical skills.

He said the development of democracy calls on everybody from
every layer of society. "As intellectuals, we can't just
surrender this responsibility to people who are not used to
engaging in analytical thought," he said.

His opinion was seconded by his colleague in Golkar, Prof. Dr.
Fachruddin of the Hasanuddin University in Ujung Pandang. "We are
used to thinking rationally, something which is needed in
political thinking," he said. "With this ability, we can
contribute much to policy makers."

Dr. Marwah Daud Ibrahim, also of Golkar, said that so far the
"political elite" has always paid serious attention to what the
intellectuals have to say. "We know that our suggestions are
considered and applied wherever appropriate by the policy
makers," said the mass and political communication expert.

Dr. Sukowaluyo Mintorahardjo from PDI faction and Zarkasih Nur
from PPP at the DPR also believe that the relationship of
intellectuals with politicians is of mutual benefit. "The
intellectuals complement the politicians, and intellectuals serve
as a candle, giving light to the existing social realities," the
physician-turned-politician Sukowaluyo said.

"Political parties need to be scientifically, objectively
managed," Zarkasih said. "Political problems too, need scientific
approaches."

The main feature of intellectuals' involvement in politics,
however, is the power of checks and balance they supposedly exert
on the political super-structure.

"The most important role of the intellectuals in political
parties is to become critics of any action carried out by both
the party elite and the administration," Sukowaluyo said.

The intellectuals-cum-politicians interviewed by The Jakarta
Post agreed that the political power holders need the
contribution of intellectuals in solving problems generated by a
fast changing world. Zarkasih, however, acknowledged that the
presence of intellectuals affords certain leverage to the
political parties come voting time.

Certainly there are those who still think that intellectuals
belong to university campuses and should remain watchdogs of
society instead of seeking membership cards from political
parties. These people believe that the intellectuals, the
politicians and the wealthy are three different power sources and
that never should they be entwined.

Franz Magnis-Suseno, a German-born lecturer at the Driyarkara
School of Theology, once warned ICMI that the close ties it
enjoys with the power holders may rob it of the very values which
are vital to intellectuals.

Intellectuals, he said, should serve as a pressure group
challenging the power holders' legitimacy, instead of going after
power and status. "They should never abandon their fundamental
function of deflating the false legitimacy of the power holders,"
he said.

Another scholar, Dr. Riswandha Imawan of the Gadjah Mada
University in Yogyakarta, took Golkar as an example of a
political grouping which has been successful in recruiting
intellectuals as a means to gain political leverage.

"Golkar recruits intellectuals from virtually everywhere, from
Jakarta to the remotest regions," he said in a discussion late
last year. "Ironically, though, Golkar eventually ran out of 'big
campaign issues' to attract voters..and that's because the
intellectuals recruited only want to become bureaucrats."

"The intellectuals recruited by Golkar are not those who want
to help it become more independent," he said.

Once the intellectuals become bureaucrats, Suseno concluded,
they tend to lose sight of their purpose. Phrased another way,
sekali duduk lupa berdiri or "once you sit (in a position for too
long) you forget to stand up (and relinquish power)."

However, the intellectuals who joined political parties were
quick to point out that the concern of "intellectual erosion" was
unnecessary and that they could retain their integrity in the
face of even the stiffest power contests.

Marsetio pointed out that intellectuals, be they inside or
outside of political parties, should have the following features:
commitment, cognition, communication and consistent. Of the four,
however, he placed a special premium on commitment.

"The development of democracy is time and energy consuming
social process," he said. "Intellectuals need commitment to see
this process through."

"Later on, after we have a more advanced political life and
once professional politicians have analytical skills as high as
intellectuals do now, we intellectuals can step back and speak
more through our writings," he said.

The question of how close intellectuals get to the center of
political power is, of course, age-old. Centuries ago, for
instance, Moslem scholars engaged in lengthy debates about the
need to draw a strict line to separate ulema (scholars) from
umara (rulers). There was even a legend about how a ulema,
mindful of the temptation of power, risked decapitation by
refusing a ruler's invitation to come to the palace and teach
there.

Given the dilemma of whether intellectuals will erode or can
remain committed in the political arena, the ideal solution would
be to retain all the benefits that their existence represents and
dispose of the ugly ramifications.

Unfortunately, nothing is that simple. Certainly there is no
denying the fact that once intellectuals join politics, they have
no other recourse but to take sides. Or that once they become
"co-opted" by "the system", those intellectuals' hands are bound.
They then often become supporters of certain institutions or
"players" in that system, and "used" as leverage by that
institution.

Beyond the rhetoric, however, another question remains: how
can the intellectuals keep their resolution to employ a system of
checks and balance and to become a critical voice in a general
political system where there is not much leeway?

"The greatest obstacle we are facing is the political and
cultural situation which does not permit the intellectuals to
become critics or to become a force which helps propel our
society toward improvement," Sukowaluyo said. "So, it is very
unfortunate that many of our intellectuals choose to keep silent
after they have entered politics."

Window A: The most important role of the intellectuals in political
parties is to become critics of any action carried out by both
the party elite and the administration.

Window B: Intellectuals should serve as a pressure group challenging the
power holders' legitimacy, instead of going after power and
status.