TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
2024 election: The boundary between science and politics
Public reaction to the "bahasa langit" used in the final vice presidential debate points to a need to define and establish the roles of so-called boundary organizations to serve as a bridge for science communication in Indonesia.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Candidates (from left) Mahfud MD, Muhaimin Iskandar and Gibran Rakabuming Raka take to the stage on Jan. 21, 2024 in the final vice presidential debate at the Jakarta Convention Center in Senayan, Jakarta. (AFP/Yasuyoshi Chiba)
T
he specter of the vice presidential debate on Jan. 21 remains fresh in our memories, although the presidential race is technically over. Apart from gestures, gimmicks and other ethical issues, the debate, for its part, provided us with an important opportunity to reflect on the connection between science and politics.
The competing terms in the political debate have important implications for the development of public understanding. How come?
The public at large was introduced to various new terms that generally revolve only in the scientific world. Terms such as “giant sea wall”, “pentahelix”, “one-map policy” and “greenflation” have since become popular in public discourse.
However, the public's assessment was not entirely positive. Many reacted negatively because of the candidates' use of "bahasa langit", which translates as “sky language”. This phenomenon only shows that the gap between science and politics remains a big challenge for Indonesia to deal with.
The main point is related to the communication bridge between science and politics. The imagination so far places an individual who stands at the intersection of science and politics, or a “boundary person”.
For example, among academic figures or experts who operate across this boundary, reflecting on the interplay between science and politics does not necessarily work. The current phenomenon shows a tendency for academics or experts to be biased in prioritizing either scientific or political calculations.
Therefore, other solutions must be considered, including encouraging the role of boundary organizations that operate across the border between science and politics to educate the public about scientific terms.
