Now we are entering the era of open politics. However, each political era creates its own complications and problems. There is no “political paradise” on earth.
By
ULIL ABSHAR-ABDALLA
·4 minutes read
PANDU LAZUARDY PATRIARI
Ulil Abshar Abdalla
There are two main issues to be discussed here: first, regarding the symptoms of political polarization which have been rife in the last 10 to 15 years in this country; and second, what steps should be taken to deal with the polarization.
In open politics, symptoms of political polarization may be commonplace. Polarization is a natural result of competition between various political groups.
In closed politics, such competition is certainly not possible. There, the diversity of groups in society (what in political science is called political cleavages) is not reflected on the surface. It was pushed deep under the rug through the "iron fist" of political repression. From there was born calm and harmony, but pseudo. We have experienced this during the New Order regime.
Now we are entering the era of open politics. However, each political era creates its own complications and problems. There is no “political paradise” on earth. Each system and political course taken will pose risks of its own. There is always a "social price" to be paid. We, as a nation, have chosen the path of democracy and open politics. This is the ijmak or political consensus of this nation. No more political U-turns from that path, I think.
The price to be paid is social and political polarization. It seems that polarization is inevitable in open politics. If we want to return to the apparent harmony during the New Order regime, it means we are returning to authoritarian politics, something we must avoid. However, this does not mean that we surrender, tawakal (submissive) in that situation. This does not mean we accept political polarization as a given fact. We must try to avoid the negative effects of political polarization.
There are two kinds of political polarization. First, natural polarization as a consequence of the diversity of political schools and groups that de facto exist in society. Second, political polarization that occurs because of certain sociopolitical dynamics that cause this diversity to lead to social antagonism. Antagonism occurs for various reasons that require separate analysis outside this room.
One reason that deserves mention is the pragmatic-opportunistic behavior of some political actors. They want to get votes easily, for example by politicizing the diversity of social identities that are particular. This is what is often called identity politics. Emotional ties in society are exploited to create a niche for votes for one or two parties or certain political figures. From there was born a dangerous social antagonism. We have experienced this since more or less the last 15 years.
Trends of political polarization that lead to antagonism are not unique to Indonesia. This is a global trend. In a more severe form, something similar is happening in the United States today. The end of the Cold War in the early 1990s ushered in a new era: the rise of identity-based politics and narrow emotional ties. In this era, we witness what Thomas Meyer, a political scholar from Germany, calls identity mania. This symptom of identity mania, in subsequent developments, triggers the birth of political actors who opportunistically want to just "ride" the bandwagon (free-riding politicians). This is what later gave birth to the politics of populism.
The second type of political polarization is clearly dangerous. This is because the diversity of identities is not processed to strengthen community integration through a cross-pollination process, but is politicized to create a niche that can be tapped easily. The result is the threat of social disintegration. This threat is so real these days because of the development of digital technology, which gave birth to what is called social media. The nature of communication that is very open and without an editing process in the social media sphere causes the threat of antagonism to be so acute.
Facing this kind of situation, there must be a certain kind of sociopolitical engineering to prevent social antagonism from getting out of control. One simple step is to develop an ethic of self-restraint, especially among figures, intellectuals, kyai/clerics, celebrities and other groups who can generally be called influencers. For the time being, this circle of influence should, preferably, not get involved in the politics of supporting (certain candidates) in the upcoming elections.
I do not advocate abstentions. Absolutely not. Learning from the experience of the last two elections, the involvement of influencers in the politics of supporting (certain candidates) and political blocs has exacerbated polarization in society. An ethic of "self-control" is needed to prevent this polarization from getting out of control.
