Criticism must be inflamed. Public officials together with civil society have the primary responsibility to promote democracy, not to display an anti-criticism stance by criminalizing the critics.
By
AZYUMARDI AZRA
·5 minutes read
ABK
Azyumardi Azra
“If our democracy is to flourish, it must have criticism; if our government is to function, it must have dissent” (Henry Steele Commager, prolific historian 1902-1998, Freedom, Loyalty, Dissent, 1954).
Indonesian democracy blossomed for about one and a half decades starting from the beginning of reform, political liberalization and the adoption of liberal democracy in 1998-1999. Indonesia was proudly called by many circles the “third-largest democracy” in the world after India and the United States. At that time, Indonesian democracy was a full democracy, full of energy and color.
However, going through the second half of the 2010s and entering the 2020s, Indonesian democracy began and continues to dwindle. Many institutions that monitor and promote democracy at home and abroad have said Indonesian democracy is receding or retreating. There are also those who have called Indonesia a “flawed democracy” or “partial democracy”.
Indonesian democracy is experiencing “deconsolidation”, not “consolidation”. What are the causes of the “deconsolidation” of Indonesian democracy? There is no single factor, but a combination of various political factors. The most important factor is the absence of the well-established democratic culture of the political elite. Some of them were originally the elite of party oligarchs or businessmen at the national or local level who became public officials in the executive and legislative institutions through general elections or regional elections. When they hold public office, they do not strengthen democracy, but on the contrary act undemocratically and oligarchically; not implementing good governance that is free from corruption, collusion and nepotism.
Another important cause is the coalition of political oligarchs in the executive and legislative institutions that has continued to grow since the general elections and post-elections in 2014 and 2019. The Joko “Jokowi” Widodo-Jusuf Kalla government (2014-2019) was supported by the Awesome Indonesia Coalition, which had expanded and eventually had 386 seats (68.93 percent) in the House of Representatives (DPR). The Jokowi-Ma\'ruf Amin government was finally supported by a coalition of seven parliamentary parties [PDI-P, Golkar Party, NasDem Party, National Awakening Party (PKB), United Development Party (PPP), Gerindra Party, and National Mandate Party (PAN)] with 471 DPR seats (81.9 percent).
Borrowing the above quote from Henry Steele Commager, the large coalition of Indonesian political power has now become an oligarchy, leaving only the Democratic Party and Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) as dissent forces — with different opinions and stances. It is obvious that the dissensions of the two of them are ineffective, whereas in an oligarchic coalition, there are practically no dissenting opinions. In such a situation, the executive and legislative oligarchy prevents democracy from functioning properly.
At the same time, the oligarchic power has pushed the checks and balances of civil society into a disorganized stage. They are not included significantly and substantively in the political process, such as legislation — amendments to laws or the submission of bills to the DPR (2019-2020). They shout in public; practically not heard. It is also becoming increasingly difficult for civil society to express criticism to government officials or public officials who in the trias politica are: executive, legislative and judicial. Criticism for many public officials is unpleasant; interfering with the security of their position and psychological comfort.
YOUTUBE DPR RI
DPR Plenary Meeting for Session I Session Year 2021-2022, Thursday (30/9/2021), at the DPR RI Building, Jakarta. The meeting was chaired by DPR Chair Puan Maharani, accompanied by DPR Deputy Speakers Muhaimin Iskandar, Rachmat Gobel, and Sufmi Dasco Ahmad.
It is not uncommon for them to block criticism using the 2008 Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law (Article 45 Paragraph 1) or the 2016 revised edition of the ITE Law (Article 45 Paragraph 3). This provision is frequently called the “rubber article” because it can make criticism against officials “defamation”. In addition, there is a Law on the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), DPR, Regional Representatives Council (DPD) and Provincial/Regional Legislative Councils (DPRD) or the 2018 MD3 Law, in particular Article 122 Letter k, which has the potential to silence criticism that is considered to be degrading the honor of the DPR of the Republic of Indonesia and members of the DPR.
In September 2021, two high-ranking state officials, namely Presidential Chief of Staff Moeldoko and Coordinating Maritime Affairs and Investment Minister Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan reported, in different cases, a number of activists to the National Police\'s Criminal Investigation Department (Bareskrim). The activists were believed to have defamed them.
There is no need for lengthy arguments about the urgency and importance of criticism in democracy. Criticism against public officials and the development of the life of the nation and state that deviates from its objectives is an important part of the freedom of expression and opinion, as the power of checks and balances, and at the same time as a reminder and moral appeal to the authorities. Criticism is an essential part of what makes a democracy dynamic and healthy. Therefore, the title of the Kompas news report is very appropriate, Anti-Criticism Stance Threatens Democracy (Saturday, 25/9/2021).
Therefore, criticism must be inflamed. Public officials together with civil society have the primary responsibility to promote democracy, not to display an anti-criticism stance by criminalizing the critics. Public officials should thank the critics for pointing out deviations, being controllers, reminders and supporters to improve the situation.
In order to face unpleasant criticism, public officials must return to the fourth principle of Pancasila, which outlines Indonesian democracy to become a deliberative democracy. Deliberative democracy (consultation) directs state administrators to prioritize deliberation with civil society and the public. Deliberative democracy provides opportunities for clarification, improvement and wisdom. The criminalization of those raising the criticism is counterproductive and reflects the arrogance of those in power.
AZYUMARDI AZRA, History Professor at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University (UIN Jakarta); Member of the Cultural Commission of the Indonesian Academy of Sciences (AIPI)
