The Constitutionalizing of Democracy
We have our Constitution and we choose democracy as our way of life. Democracy essentially enables the people to participate in choosing state executive leadership and legislative members that represent the aspirations of voters. Politicians never elect themselves to public office. Once elected, regardless of their political affiliations, they answer to those who vote for them.
This is the essence of a representative democracy. The Constitution guarantees the right of all people to be engaged in democratic practices to prevent democracy from harming anyone.
However, in recent times, our national politics seem to reaffirm a new adage, namely that democracy can be used to harm others. This radicalization of democracy makes it seem as if people can defend their rights and reject others’ by any means necessary. Democratic processes are carried out in ways that incite riots and take lives, incurring huge losses, even for those who refuse to be involved in all the chaos. Because of this, some even have to face the law.
Matters of contestation for power are essentially simple. Such political contests, in which the people serve as the jury, must always end with people’s sovereignty. Disputes can be resolved through constitutional means. However, due to falsehoods engineered by the media, such matters have entered people’s subconscious, where they stay even until today.
Democracy of the people
This is how democracy is practiced without the demos (people). Democracy without democratic rationality. The political mass behaves like fanatic fans of soccer clubs who turn their disappointment into anarchy. The term “hooliganism” comes from the English soccer scene and refers to soccer fans’ acts of violent barbarism whenever their champions lose in soccer matches. Seeds of violence exist in the structure of human beings’ personality. Only through sustainable self-discipline will such seeds be restrained.
In the end, this will lead to the perception of a legal vacuum without any mean of tackling unconstitutional behavior.
Democracy without discipline will give birth to people who are easily provoked to reject the state in all its forms. Through overtly critical behavior, the government is often targeted through hate speech and it may become the public enemy. This will nurture an antigovernment narrative, in which the government is seen as a regime of lies and repression. In the end, this will lead to the perception of a legal vacuum without any mean of tackling unconstitutional behavior.
Jose Ortega y Gasset (1930) divides human beings into individuals and masses. Individuals constantly demand space for self-development, no matter how rocky the path is toward truth and certainty. Their belief is based on factual examination and verification. They realize that they are never far from the ocean of ignorance and will always strive to go against the current to prevent themselves from being drowned in mediocrity.
The Spanish philosopher was worried about the rise of mass movements in Europe that enforced their opinions by fighting the authorities and neglecting general standards of truth. In the name of democracy, masses can take control of public spaces. Without adequate processes of intellectual discourse, the public space is filled with information that drags people into closed beliefs. It will seem as if political reality is black or white.
As members of the mass, human beings may think that they know everything and will enclose themselves in their own shells of knowledge. They refuse to discipline themselves in filtering the information around them. They only believe in the things they want to believe. True or false is another matter entirely. Following the current of those with similar beliefs is deemed more important. Rationalism is sacrificed.
Ortega observes these symptoms of hyper-democracy. People become overconfident that they can create a better future without exactly knowing what they have to create to achieve it. In the end, such mediocre people will enforce their personal opinions in public spaces. Their reason cannot see falsehoods and end up defending their opinions to the death – despite those opinions’ shortcomings. Sovereignty of the masses does not fulfill the requirement of a progressive society.
Karl R. Popper (1944) wrote that tragedies of the modern age were caused by people with good intentions but lacking in rational principles. According to the Austrian philosopher, the problem of modern humans is less about morality and more about poor rational principles, making it easy for their knowledge to be manipulated and misused.
They can forward information without verifying it first, based purely on primordial fanaticism in their political preferences.
The onslaught of social media technology combined with laziness in seeking truth can be found even among the educated. Scholars and professionals are essentially the elites of a developing society. However, their intellect often cannot be seen in social media discussions. They can forward information without verifying it first, based purely on primordial fanaticism in their political preferences.
Even after obtaining other information from trusted sources, they repeat their mistakes. As this occurs not only in a handful of people, our democracy is being undermined by a shallowness of intellectualism.
Democracy of the market
Unlike the New Order regime with its centralized state authority, actors in post-reform democracy are spread everywhere. Our democracy is noisy, much like the scenes in traditional markets. People haggle. They grumble. Every voice is heard, especially as the social media enables individuals without adequate political knowledge to be involved in political discussions.
Due to friendship networks in social media groups, these individuals are engaged and used in movements of power-seeking politics. Members of the mass then have to face the law, while the elites and techno-politicians abusing their naivety remain untouched. The state is the legal guardian of law and order, but their authority will only recognized when law enforcement is consistent and non-discriminatory.
Here lies the urgency of the constitutionalizing of democracy. The alternative is democracy of the masses that pays no attention to democracy’s quality and final product. Ideally, the quality of our elected representatives and leaders get better from election to election, for the glory of Great Indonesia. Consequently, our democracy will only be healthy with the presence of a strong and effective opposition to control the administration of state power.
It is in the nature of power to wish to walk freely and unchecked. This is not the democracy dreamed by Mohammad Hatta, the father of Indonesian democracy. The room for abuse of power must be made narrower and the opportunities for corruption smaller. State finances must be improved and state administrative made more effective. All of this will never happen if political elites form power oligarchies. The celebration of democracy, for which so much money has been spent and so many people have sacrificed, must not be enjoyed only by elites who play silent games behind the curtain of our noisy democracy. Oh, our democracy!
Yonky Karman, Lecturer, Jakarta School of Theology and Philosophy