In the Possibility Trap

There has been lots of commotion since early 2019. It not known what else might happen in the future. What is the ideal stance of the state in the midst of this complexity?

HERYUNANTO

.

There has been lots of commotion since early 2019: (a) social divisions ahead of the 17 April 2019 elections with "identity politics" as the dominant narrative; (b) post-election riots; (c) the attack on the Papuan dormitory in Surabaya, which was followed by protests; (d) polemic on the election of new Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) leaders and revision of the KPK Law; and (e) forest fires that affected as far as Singapore.

It not known what else might happen in the future. What is the ideal stance of the state in the midst of this complexity? The idea of "centripetal democracy" of Joseph Lacey (2017) is perhaps an illustration that needs to be looked into. Departing from the lingua franca\'s thesis on a sustainable democratic system, Lacey highlighted the weakness of democratic legitimacy and political identity in Belgium, Switzerland and the European Union in general.

The basic assumption of the lingua franca thesis is that the absence of the same language in democratic dialogue causes democracy to not function optimally because "collective decisions" in democratic institutions frequently fail to include the aspirations of society. Lacey offers the idea of centripetal democracy, an idea that legitimate democratic institutions must be the driving force of all public action.

Who plays?

In this context, what needs to be underlined: (a) public space is dynamic and plural and (b) the active role of state institutions. To be honest, the commotion since the beginning of 2019 signaled an effort to widen the distance between the state and society. Whoever is behind the drama has clearly created a "state versus society" war.

A dynamic, flexible, and context-based style of political leadership saved Jokowi and his government from the continuing storm.

They take advantage of the ontological tension between the state and civil society. On the one hand, public space has become increasingly dynamic and diverse -- and it should be so! On the other hand, the state is at a crossroads: (a) between being tempted to adopt a classical approach with coercive power, which in turn has the potential to give birth to a "Leviathan state" and/or (b) be moved to innovate in responding to the situation without compromising democratic idealism and state authority. The implication is that there needs to be a similarity in "language" in political dialogue at the level of state institutions to ensure harmony in the diversity of public space and the inclusion of diversity in public deliberation. The state must unite all actions and public aspirations in decision making. The fundamental requirement is the existence of open access between the state and public space. Through this access, deliberative communication can be built productively.

This is the superiority of the Jokowi government, namely "the state" placing itself as part of the community, not the subordinate community of the state. A dynamic, flexible, and context-based style of political leadership saved Jokowi and his government from the continuing storm. Jokowi\'s language and political decisions are measurable, proportionate, and adapted to the context.

Its positive thing is that the government does not provide a loophole for the losers to "shoot" the President from behind. The negative thing lies in the social fact that the public space which is allowed to grow dynamically and plurally even fosters criticism and resistance to the government in a sustainable manner. Of course democracy does not see that as a problem because that is the nature of democracy. However, it is a challenge for Jokowi\'s leadership now and in the future if public space is tainted by the dirty agenda of political thugs.

Pluralism in public space is a distinct advantage for socio-political stability. Various media discourses and street actions make it impossible to have a single narrative.

The other advantage is that relevant state institutions such as the military (TNI), National Police, including the State Intelligence Agency (BIN) have anticipatory capabilities and adequate responsive advantages. When the riots broke out after the election, there were accusations of an "unjust and cruel state". In the end, intelligence information and the police\'s quick action broke the Pandora\'s box that there were "players" who wanted to destabilize the country. The tension of opinion of the "unjust state" has also declined.

When Papua was turbulent, speculation grew that separatism was unstoppable. The fact showed the turmoil has subsided again. The three state institutions (BIN, police and TNI) collaborate and act quickly. Conflict sponsors bite back fingers because of the maneuver of Beni Wenda -- flying from London, stopping in a particular country before finally landed in the South Pacific to succeed the chaos in Papua -- like sowing salt into the sea.

Third, pluralism in public space is a distinct advantage for socio-political stability. Various media discourses and street actions make it impossible to have a single narrative. The plurality of public spaces gives rise to turbulence, but simultaneously also provides automatic stabilizers.

With regard to the plurality of public space, perhaps the KPK discussion is a commensurate example. Since its establishment in 2002, through Law No. 30/2002, the KPK has made a lot of contributions. Of course not a matter of the amount of state money being saved, but rather a matter of caring for the hopes of people who are injured with structural poverty due to the long-standing corruption in the political and bureaucratic structures. However, there are rumors that certain individuals play politics with extraordinary authority attached to their positions as anti-corruption officials. Rumors about "sprindik business" (an investigation warrant) had developed several years ago — even though they were officially denied by the institution!

The KPK is an institution that is managed by humans, so it needs supervision. Who is supervising?

There is another rumor, "Taliban groups" control the arena of investigation in the institution. The term "Taliban" -- meaning very limited and presumably not interpreted so wildly -- refers to a number of persons who are "too religious" that they make the war on corruption a "personal jihad" for the ideals of the caliphate as well as political vengeance. At the same time, an opinion develops that individuals in the House of Representatives were behind the revision of the KPK Law to limit institutional steps in hunting down corruptors. Democracy lives on from this fertile public discourse. Therefore, let the opinion become homework as well as betting for the integrity of the new leadership of the KPK in the future.

Government position

In such a situation, there are political decisions that have to be understood. The KPK is an institution that is managed by humans, so it needs supervision. Who is supervising? This must be a public concern. Do not let the KPK find it difficult to move because those who supervise are those who actually deserve to be monitored. Supervision is a necessity because KPK officials are human beings who have the opportunity to carry out an abuse of power. Yes, we are trapped in a probability theory. That is not a problem. As an institution, the KPK is a superbody, but the people in it are not supermen. I want to emphasize that human relativism forces us to continue to be trapped in the theory of probability. Certainty only exists when doubt becomes reality or estimation becomes an empirical fact.

KOMPAS/LUCKY PRANSISKA

Boni Hargens

Therefore, perhaps these three proposals are necessary. First, the government as  "state representation" must continue to be in the middle, a centripetal force that maintains the diversity of public spaces. Consequently, the synergy between relevant state institutions and the government is a stabilizing force in the midst of the shocks. Third, to ensure that law enforcement is free from all forms of intervention, civil society is a fundamental force -- the spirit of living democracy (Diamond, 2008). The state must continue to guarantee civil liberties and political rights for every citizen while remaining firm in addressing the thugs who make "democratic freedom" a Trojan horse to destabilize the country.

Boni Hargens, Director of the Indonesian Voters Institute