Prior to Indonesia’s 13th general election on Februari 14, 2024, the concerns of democratic practice has risen up among academics (professors and lecturers). On Januari 31, the academics consisting of lecturers and professors of University of Gadjah Mada, Jogjakarta became the first academic community to call out the democratic decline under President Jokowi’s administration. This declaration, called “Petisi Bulaksumur”, mainly focused on the several ethical violation committed by the Constitutional Court, including the revision of eligibility criteria for presidential and vice-presidential candidates, which served as the legal basis for Jokowi's son to run for vice president. The petition also highlighted the involvement of several cabinet ministers and Jokowi himself in political campaigning during working days, as well as the distribution of a large amount of cash transfers by the government just days before the election, allegedly to boost the electability of Jokowi's favored candidates (Puspitalova, 2024). The community of academics in more than 30 universities, including the University of Indonesia, the University of Islam Indonesia, Padjajaran University, and the Bandung Institute of Technology, followed suit and called out Jokowi's unethical political practices, which they believed betrayed the spirit of democracy (Qodir, 2024).
Amidst the protests and petitions from the academic community, documentary film titled "Dirty Vote" was released on February 11 by a group of academics slash experts with a background in constitutional law. The film exposed instances of fraud, ethical scandals, and political partisanship that occurred well before and during the campaign period. It implicated all three candidates, with allegations that Jokowi orchestrated the victory of a particular candidate through the misuse of power as the incumbent government (Loasana, 2024).
Although initiated by groups of academics, there were debates that the film and the preceding mass-declaration/petition were forms of propaganda intended to sway voters before the election day. Moreover, there is a debate about the political impartiality of these academics, with some arguing that academics should confine themselves to education and steer clear of any political involvement. But, is that true? Should academics translate neutrality as silence and speak only when asked? What are the boundaries?
Academics’ Constraint and Freedom
In 2022, the film "Don't Look Up," featuring Jennifer Lawrence and Leonardo DiCaprio, delivered a classic satire portraying the dire consequences of governments neglecting the advice of academics and scientists, leading to imminent disasters (Sinatra & Hofer, 2022). This scenario mirrors reality, where academics are often perceived as truth bearers. Simon (1979, 1991) argues that humans, with their bounded rationality, face constraints such as cognitive biases, time limitations, and the inability to perform complex calculations to evaluate various potential solutions flawlessly, all of that leads to suboptimal decisions. To mitigate bounded rationality in decision-making, it is essential to engage in truth-seeking activities, such as data collection, research, and fact-checking—precisely the role of academics. This underscores the importance of involving academics and scientists in decision-making processes, as they contribute to evidence-based decision formulation. Notably, countries like the United Kingdom have established independent advisory bodies comprising academics and scientists to assist in decision-making. In summary, the presence of academics in government’s policies, regulations, and decisions is nothing new at all.
But do they provide advice only when requested? Not necessarily. According to Pielke (2007)’s theory of “Four Idealised Roles for Experts in Decision-Making”, experts, including scientists and academics, may assume two of the four political roles when presenting their perspectives and contributing to policies: Honest Brokers and Issue Advocates. Honest Brokers aim to broaden the range of options by clarifying existing policy choices and proactively proposing and expanding new alternatives without promoting their personal preferences. In contrast, Issue Advocates strive to narrow the range of options, aligning themselves with a specific political agenda, set of values, or interest group. While Pielke suggests that experts should ideally adopt the Honest Broker role due to its neutrality, he does not oppose those who take a stance, as long as they transparently disclose their affiliations and preferences in advance. Both of these roles involve actively presenting proposals and initiatives against current situation or policies with or without prior request.
Furthermore, the involvement of academics in Indonesian politics is grounded in three key principles. Firstly, their commitment, expressed through their oath and ethical conduct, emphasizes a dedication to serving society ("pengabdian masyarakat"). This commitment is further reinforced by Government Regulation No. 4/2014 concerning the Implementation of Higher Education and the Management of Higher Education. This principle underscores the noble duty of academics to advocate for society's interests, even if it involves speaking out against actions that may harm or disadvantage the community. Secondly, academics, as citizens, have the right to participate in democratic processes, allowing them to engage in the political landscape, as outlined in the 1945 Constitution. Lastly, for academics within the civil service, there exists an ethical obligation to refrain from partisanship, ensuring an impartial and unbiased approach to political involvement. These factors collectively establish the foundation for the integration of academics into the political sphere in Indonesia. Therefore, the actions of academics to provide advice, speak out opinion, and “tell the truth”, including about political situation, fall within their obligation and are protected by the constitution.
However, there is still skepticism about the timing: why are these academics choosing to speak out now instead of at other times? First of all, their right to express opinions is not constrained by a specific timeframe. Moreover, the issue at hand, that is ongoing general election, is far from outdated. In addition, academic strikes are not a novel occurrence. In 2022, the National Teacher Union went on strike due to an amendment to The Constitution of the National Education System that removed an article related to the professional allowance for teachers from the salary components. This amendment left them facing the possibility of significant underpayment. The teachers, exercising their rights as both academics and citizens, protested against this unjust treatment (Kasih, 2022). Considering the widespread issue of underpayment and many issues related to education and other social issues, there should be even more platforms and opportunities for them to voice their concerns, rather than stifling their voices.
The Truth-Tellers
The preceding discussion leads to the conclusion that these academics fundamentally hold the essential mission of being truth-tellers. Gibbs (2019) asserts that academics, as part of the university community, possess the capability to uncover truth and should play a crucial role in clarifying knowledge and disseminating accurate information to society. Particularly in the face of misinformation and hoaxes, Gibbs describes this distinctive role as that of a "judge." Noam Chomsky's essay titled "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" (2017, p.18) further underscores the obligations of intellectuals, emphasizing their privileged access to richer knowledge and information. Chomsky urges intellectuals to "speak out the truth" and to "expose the lies of governments, to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions." Written during the Vietnam War, this essay serves as a critique of U.S. intellectuals who remained subservient to power. It serves as a reminder of the educators' pledge to serve society and stand by the people; they must be the bearers of truth and their right to do so should be protected by government.
In the context of the discourse surrounding academics' freedom of expression, a documentary film titled "Eksil" was released in Indonesian cinemas in February 2024, shedding light on the mass elimination of intellectuals in 1965 (Indra, 2024). During the New Order era, Indonesia experienced a significant reduction in intellectual activism, as many scholars studying abroad were labeled as leftist and prohibited from returning to Indonesia unless they acknowledged the newly established Soeharto era. The remaining academics faced severe constraints on their right to speak out during Soeharto's 32-year leadership, fundamentally challenging the democratic rights foundation for academics. Rebuilding what was lost in 1965 may require Indonesia to start anew, but societal awareness should initiate the normalization of providing space and platforms for academics to convey the truth without attacking the messenger.
References:
Chomsky, N. (2017). The responsibility of intellectuals. The New Press.
Gibbs, P. (2019). Why academics should have a duty of truth telling in an epoch of post-truth?. Higher Education, 78, 501-510.
Government Regulation No. 4/2014 about the Implementation of Higher Education and the Management of Higher Education. Accessed at https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/5441/pp-no-4-tahun-2014
Indra, R. (2023, October 4). No way home: Documentary ‘Eksil’ sheds light on those exiled in 1965. The Jakarta Post. https://www.thejakartapost.com/culture/2023/10/04/no-way-home-documentary-eksil-sheds-light-on-those-exiled-in-1965.html
Kasih, A. P. (2022, August 29). Ayat Tunjangan Profesi Dihapus dari RUU Sisdiknas, Dinilai "Mematikan" Guru dan Dosen. Kompas. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2022/08/29/19042171/ayat-tunjangan-profesi-dihapus-dari-ruu-sisdiknas-dinilai-mematikan-guru-dan?page=allPuspitalova, A.T. (2024, February 4). Nyatakan Sikap Atas Melencengnya Demokrasi, Ini Daftar Perguruan Tinggi yang Bergerak. Tempo.co. https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1829668/nyatakan-sikap-atas-melencengnya-demokrasi-ini-daftar-perguruan-tinggi-yang-bergerak
Loasana, N. A. (2024, February 13). Film ‘Dirty Vote’ causes stir days before election. The Jakarta Post. https://www.thejakartapost.com/indonesia/2024/02/13/film-dirty-vote-causes-stir-days-before-election.html
Pielke Jr, R. A. (2007). The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press.
Qodir, A. A. (2024, February 5). Terus Bertambah, Berikut 32 Sivitas Akademika Kampus yang Mengkritik Jokowi. Tribunnews. https://www.tribunnews.com/mata-lokal-memilih/2024/02/05/terus-bertambah-berikut-32-sivitas-akademika-kampus-yang-mengkritik-jokowi
Simon, H. A. (1979). Rational decision making in business organizations. The American economic review, 69(4), 493-513.
Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.125
Sinatra, G. & Hofer, B.K. (2022, January 5). ‘Don’t Look Up’: Hollywood’s primer on climate denial illustrates 5 myths that fuel rejection of science. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/dont-look-up-hollywoods-primer-on-climate-denial-illustrates-5-myths-that-fuel-rejection-of-science-174266