Taking Care of State-Society Relations
nThe situation at present is not as simple as it seems. The violent social clashes before and after the 2019 general elections left a trail of turbulence that has the potential to be a future time bomb.
Apart from "improving the welfare of the people", what is the teleological agenda of a democratic country that allows alibis and narratives of power to get moral justification in various controversial situations?
Could state-society relations be at a point of harmonious balance? In 1956, United States sociologist Wright Mills (1916-1962) published a document titled “The Power Elite”.
At the initial party, Mills spoke about the many people whose lives are not shaped by their own will and design but created by the interests of a handful of people who were more powerful than most in society, especially political and economic groups. They are what he calls the "power elite" or "great men" in the language of the Swiss cultural historian Carl Jacob Christoph Burckhardt (1818-1897). Even though he was talking about the dynamics of democracy in the US at that time, Mills\' thesis is always relevant in various contexts.
Also read:
> Restoring the Sovereignty of the People
Reading the sociopolitical reality of the paradigm of power, especially if it is placed in an elitist perspective, there are two classes: "the ruling" and "the ruled". Democracy, from the very beginning, proclaims the essence of popular sovereignty as the main spirit of democracy, which in practice is entrusted to a handful of representatives sitting in the power room to act on the basis of and for the benefit of the people an sich.
History proves that in the hands of the political elite, the instinct of power is not always in harmony with the moral essence of power per se. Some elites act “on behalf of the people” to satisfy themselves. Political corruption and the politicization of group identity, especially the politicization of religion, are examples of a pragmatic praxis that erodes the moral content of power.
Removing shallow issues
We are only at the end of the first half of 2021, the discourse on the 2024 presidential election has strengthened. Names have even been circulating mass media. Amid a pandemic that has given rise to various social unrests, we are treated to political news that is shallow, temporal and far from the struggles of ordinary people\'s lives.
Some people feel it is a normal dynamic because politics is always talking about who gets what, when and how. However, it is undeniable that moral judgments take place in the realm of conscience. All of us who have an ethical concern for our nation and state are certainly not happy with such a spectacle.
For a statesman, the safety of the people and the interests of the state are two inseparable realities, even dependent on each other. Without the safety of the people, the state simultaneously loses its ontological essence and teleological purpose. On the other hand, without taking care of the interests of the state (the constitution, policies, security of state apparatus, territorial integrity, ideological resilience and so on), it is impossible for the safety of the people to be realized.
Is it wrong that the ambition of the political elite always dominates mass media news? This is not a matter of right or wrong, but a matter of ethical or not. President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo\'s rule will only end in the next three years. Amid today\'s social complexities, the people are at the most vulnerable point. Moral imagination and ethical responsibility are demanded from the political elite to prioritize the fate of the people over the pragmatic election agenda, which is still far away.
State-society relations commotion
The situation at present is not as simple as it seems. The violent social clashes before and after the 2019 general elections left a trail of turbulence that has the potential to be a future time bomb. Radicalism, terrorism and separatism are real threats faced by the nation and state. Consolidation in the community and at the elite level has not been completed in responding to the three threats.
The special autonomy for Papua is still met with strong resistance. At the same time, the issue of “radicalism” has been highly politicized, especially by some political opposition. This could undermine the deradicalization work that has already been carried out. Some of the opposition views radicalism as a terminology created by the regime to silence political opponents. Such a view is certainly a serious problem, even more dangerous than radicalism itself.
Also read:
> The Paralyzed Pancasila Ideology
The narrative of injustice carried by right-wing populist groups, especially after the successful Arab Spring in the Middle East after the big breakthrough in Tunisia in 2010, continues to increase conflictual tensions in state-society relations. This is an issue that goes beyond elections. Ironically, some political elites treat this kind of issue as electoral ammunition.
Intellectuals continue to debate whether the consolidation of democracy since 1998 has been successful or not. When can we get out of the political transition phase? Such epistemological debates have profound practical implications. In the end, we will talk about the existence of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and various additional institutions that were formed to accelerate the consolidation of democracy in the post-authoritarian state.
In a public discussion, I said in response to a social activist that the consolidation of democracy was not yet complete. The main indicator is the functioning of the basic democratic institutions that we know as the trias politica. The KPK is essentially an ad hoc, temporary institution. It can be dissolved when the judiciary is deemed strong enough to carry out law enforcement functions.
The fact that political corruption is still widely ongoing will take us far from the candle at the end of the dark tunnel. The implication is that the existence of the KPK is still needed, it needs to be continuously supported and strengthened.
Is the civic knowledge test (TWK) a threat? In a particular context, social complexity cannot be overcome with a single point of view. There is a problem of radicalism that threatens the resilience of the Pancasila ideology, on one hand, and has long spread in many state institutions, and there is a need for the creation of a clean government on the other hand. Both are fundamental and should be tackled together as much as possible.
The struggle against corruption must be placed within the framework of the state ideology, not in other ideologies.
In this lens, the TWK needs to be viewed optimistically as an effort to strengthen the existence and role of the KPK, especially in terms of maintaining the moral commitment of the people to the ideology of the state, not to other ideologies — even though at first glance, the objectives look similar! The same goal does not justify a difference of the approaches. The struggle against corruption must be placed within the framework of the state ideology, not in other ideologies.
However, worries about the weakening of the KPK, after the transition from independent employee status to state civil servants (ASN), need to become a reflection of all elements, especially civil society, in the role of supervising the powers that be.
Recommendation
The complexity of state-society relations today reflects incongruence in a number of aspects. First, there is conflict between the state and society paradigms on a number of strategic issues such as the TWK. In such a situation, it is difficult to have a harmony of views.
Therefore, it is better to put aside the issue of the TWK and return to the standard legal rules while waiting for the KPK to prove itself in terms of performance strengthening. Public protest needs to be accepted as a reflection as long as it is good for the interests of society, nation and state.
Second, the impression that a conflictual relationship between the state and society that strengthens in line with strict law enforcement against political opposition groups, especially street opposition, is dragged into cases of hate speech, violent crimes and radical propaganda. Even if the state is right, a balanced strategy is still needed to prevent tensions from becoming a time bomb in the future.
Also read:
Third, the state-society relational tension is certainly inseparable from the 2024 election agenda. Issues of injustice, resistance against the government and various propaganda in the public sphere need to be critically evaluated to distinguish political games from the pure voice of the people.
Fourth, it is necessary to improve government communication, especially in responding to opposition attacks in the mass media. Scenarios of raising support are often more effective than offensive strategies. Strong criticism needs to be responded to in a different way while maintaining a balance of frequency so that the state\'s authority is not underestimated.
Next, the promotion of government achievements and the hard work of state officials is an alternative effort to suppress political opposition resistance without entering the arena of conflict that is deliberately created. There are many examples for this. Massive development in Papua is a form of the government\'s concrete contribution against the propaganda of the separatists.
Boni Hargens
The tunnel connecting Istiqlal Mosque and the Cathedral in Jakarta is an effort to build a monument of tolerance. This kind of positive approach needs to be improved; not to win over the opposition, but to bring state-society relations to a point of harmonious balance and, especially, to take care of the collective perception of our Indonesia, which is democratic, tolerant and peace-loving.
Boni Hargens, Director of the Indonesian Voters Institute (LPI), teacher at a number of universities in the country.
This article was translated by Hyginus Hardoyo.
