Democracy and Room for Criticism
.
The police arresting Dyann Kemala Arrizqi, based on reports of a meme that satirized House of Representatives Speaker Setya Novanto’s medical treatment, is deplorable. This incident shows that the freedom and democracy that have been echoing throughout the nation since 1998 are not as sure and strong as the people have imagined.
This even indicates a setback in the freedom of expression, especially the freedom of comedic expression. Is this a sign that the nation is not ready for democracy, or is this a side effect of democracy?
Satirical comedy is a humorous way of talking about something serious. It reflects public discontent in an amusing way, whether through caricature, comedic plays and music, and even through the new comedic variant of cyberspace: the meme.
As a comedic take on serious matters, satire is not without objective. Its goal is to protest a condition that is distant from an ideal without necessarily staging a rally or a demonstration. Through this way, people exposed to the digital medium are made aware of what is happening.
Paradox of democracy
Satirical comedy has existed since the authoritarian New Order era. Warkop DKI was a group of satirical comedians that was popular on Radio Prambors in 1973-1980, during the height of the New Order regime. The New Order government had a guideline issued that prohibited satirical comedy from criticizing the government and the president. This forced satirical comedians to think about more effective ways to reach their audience.
Many comedians and artists became entangled in legal issues because of the content of the artworks they created. Censorship was the lightest form of sanctions an artist dealt with under the New Order. Meanwhile, artistic bans were commonplace, and prison time was a real possibility when an artist directly criticized the government.
Once again, the legal case that has befallen Dyann forces us to rethink the meaning of democracy. Democracy should provide the public the freedom to think critically about the socio-political condition of their environment. The critical space that is formed by a democracy enables the meeting of ideas to compete in search of the best synthesis for the community, and in this case, satirical comedy constitutes one such medium.
However, this freedom appears unfelt and absent, even though the winds of freedom have been blowing for nearly two decades in this country. Several comedians besides Dyann have also received complaints related to the content they have created. Stand-up comedian Ernest Prakasa was once bombarded with criticism from party supporters after he posted a witty tweet in connection with their party.
Does this mean that Indonesian democracy is moving backward? I view the above cases as revealing a paradox in democracy.
Democracy enables the shifting of power from government to civil society. If power lay entirely with the government during the New Order era, democratization has equitably distributed power to community groups, and even to individuals.
The cases of Dyann and Ernest do not show the state monopolizing power, but rather the emergence of new power in the hands of communities in civil society to control other communities. As a result, the restrictions that are placed are not so much from the government on the artists in the forms of censorship and legal actions, but from a community to another community in the form of threats, somasi (legal notices), and even reporting to the police.
This is worsened by the democratic reality of identity politics, which is often employed in the power struggle among parties or electoral candidates. Humorously criticizing a party is interpreted as a serious assault on one identity made by another identity. Meanwhile, increasing political polarization endangers freedom of expression.
The situation is even worse, because it not only threatens freedom of expression, which spreads relational materials horizontally within civil society, but also vertically within government. At a much farther level, the situation will affect the freedom of expression of satirical comedians.
Creating expressive space
The two do not make for an ideal condition. I urge a two-way evaluation, if we want to achieve a creative climate for comedic freedom.
First, in the long term, the maturity of civil society to accept satirical comedy as a democratic reality is urgently needed. Comprehensive political education for the public is key to this, and not merely educating the public on partisan politics. Civil society must be familiarized with the fact that space for criticism is common in a democracy, so there is no need to respond disruptively against satirical comedy as criticism. Of course, if we reflect upon the current situation, this change is one that requires a longer-term approach.
Second, the current condition does not mean that space for satirical, comedic criticism has been lost. In such conditions, there is always a way for comedians to create their own expressive space while considering social sensitivities.
If we look at how Warkop DKI’s satirical jokes existed under the New Order, this can be emulated by present-day comedians. Warkop DKI showed that satirical criticism can survive under any condition, even the most threatening condition, if the jokes are wrapped in an appropriate context and delivered in a clever way. This is because satire is smart comedy, in both content and delivery.
I criticize those several comedians who have made materials that directly criticize their political opponents, and not within the wider contextual framework of the national condition, regardless of the objectives of the political choices they have made.
Comedians have to be objective mirrors that reflect the social condition and the voices of civil society. If so, the existence of comedians must be maintained, both by civil society and the comedians themselves, as a means for encouraging public awareness.
I personally believe that a civil society that is unable to laugh at itself will become dysfunctional in its sensitivity, which will then trigger community conflicts in the long run.
This nation has to get used to laughing at itself, because laughing is a sign that we are consciously thinking about a problem we have that we need to laugh at together. And this is not only work for the government to undertake, but also civil society and comedians. It is as a French satirist wrote: "Life is a comedy for those who think, but a tragedy for others who feel."
GERADI YUDHISTIRA
Lecturer of Democracy in Southeast Asia, Islamic University of Indonesia
