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.