The skepticism enriches democracy. We also need it to develop a truly healthy political climate in the long run. A healthy democracy and politics requires slight skepticism is something known by many parties.
By
ULIL ABSHAR-ABDALLA
·3 minutes read
PANDU LAZUARDY PATRIARI
Ulil Abshar Abdalla
Democracy cannot be healthy without a reasonable dose of skepticism. This skepticism usually comes from people who are outside the circle of power. Usually this kind of attitude makes the political status quo less comfortable. However, this skepticism enriches democracy. We also need it to develop a truly healthy political climate in the long run.
Democracy needs skepticism: This is the "small thesis" I wish to develop in this short analysis. To close the year 2022, it is better to go over this small thesis again. What I mean here by skepticism is the attitude of not everyone instantly agreeing to whatever the ruling party presents.
In a healthy democracy and politics, the following two attitudes must be balanced: namely, being loyal to the authorities who have won the battle in an open election, but also being "skeptical" at the same time and not having full faith alias in them; i.e. surrendering to the authorities. If we use the terms from Islamic theology, two attitudes must be taken at once: jabariyah (surrender, in the sense of being loyal to the authorities) and qadariyah (being critical/skeptical). This attitude is often called "critical loyalty".
What I write is not new. That a healthy democracy and politics requires slight skepticism is something known by many parties. However, this simple truth has shrunk in recent years, almost to the point of being ignored, due to the great political polarization in society. We are currently going through a rather annoying period in the development of democracy in this country, an either/or or us/them situation: You are either with us or against us. If you are with us, you are a friend; if you are against, you are an enemy.
We never thought that, roughly 20 years since the reform movement, our democracy would reach a "political estuary" like this.
In this divisive situation, the skepticism needed to make democracy healthy is often deemed a "threat" by those who happen to be in power. In an "either/or" situation like this, critical loyalty is nearly impossible. The choice is black and white: If you support "us", you must be fully loyal, not oval, let alone rectangular.
In one respect, we are witnessing a "new version" of the situation during the New Order era. By saying this, of course I am not denying that a number of positive changes have occurred in our political composition. Categorically, we have somehow left the New Order, "but its vestiges still linger with us".
Educated people and intellectuals have a heavy moral duty to attend to "political sanity" while maintaining a skeptical attitude. Skeptical groups also need to be developed in society, especially in the academic sphere. However, skepticism does not mean taking an "anti-government" attitude in a haphazard manner, an attitude that we often see these days among those who oppose the government.
The political status quo does not need to worry about critical-loyal voices. This is the only attitude that can gradually overcome the present state of political polarization.
