Liberal Democracy Returns

KOMPAS/HERU SRI KUMORO

Yonky Karman

Our democracy has thus far experienced the deficit of giving birth to many politicians, but too few statesmen. Ideally, from one election to another, state administrators should comprise increasingly qualified statesmen (competent, with integrity). However, power-hungry politicians have cut the linear correlation of time and quality.

Whether it is acknowledge or not, we are trapped in a liberal democracy. Not only those with a lot of money, but also others that can fire up politicized issues. Populist issues are being manipulated to change the views of the masses, to trigger primordial emotions and to dull common sense. In speech, we condemn liberal economy, but our political behavior follows liberal democracy.

Our reform has indeed given the broad path of democracy but, as Bung Hatta put it in Our Democracy, we "forget the requirements for building democracy in practice". As a result, we practice liberal democracy (free fight), "smashing each other... causing national divisions so that development efforts are abandoned". Such a democracy "knows no limits to its freedom, forgets the requirements of its life, and merely descends into anarchy".

A participatory democracy aims to appoint quality leaders who will in turn advance the life of the nation and state. The honorable goal of democracy will be achieved, "if there is a sense of responsibility and tolerance among the political leadership. This is what is lacking among the party leaders, as I have repeatedly warned." Hatta\'s warning of over half a century ago is still relevant to our situation today.

Divisive democracy

The political practice of liberal democracy is basically absent of political ethics. All ways are halal, as long as the opponent can be defeated. In the pursuit of power, the national fabric, if necessary, is torn asunder, with the people utilized as fuel for the campaigns. Sportsmanship is irrelevant in the battle of programs and ideas. A part of us interpret democratic space as an opportunity to indulge in verbal abuse, in words or posts on social media, against anything we dislike. Not only that, but fictitious information is disseminated to form public opinion and build negative sentiments.

Political hoaxes are being played in this digital age as part of a strategy to win the general elections. Regardless of who benefits from or is harmed by political hoaxes, the greatest loss will, of course, be society, divided into binary camps based only on the assumption of political choice in the general elections. The people and the losing candidates will be ruined, while the winner will celebrate their victory over the remnants of the national fabric.

That is not our democracy as a nation, which was known for engaging in deliberations toward a consensus, for working together and living in harmony. Our leaders painstakingly nurtured the unity of the nation with the awareness that a divided nation would lack the strength to move forward and face external challenges. In its unity lies the strength and greatness of the Indonesian nation. It is the only way we will become a nation that is not easily mastered and dictated by a strong state.

In the past, the Dutch colonial rulers employed the policy of “divide and rule” to make it easier to control the abundant economic resources in the country. Now, after a long period of independence, some of our political elite have adopted the same policy in the name of democracy, but in order to rule their own nation. When our economy is under foreign control, this is not because foreigners are our enemies, but rather, because we are weak so that we are easily controlled by foreign elements.

Misleading dichotomy

There is a revealing insight that legitimizes the statesman-politician dichotomy. The statesman\'s approach is to take care of the state, while the politician’s approach is to pursue power until it is in their grasp. By definition, statesmen understand the government, obey the principles of formulating public policies, and are visionary (see beyond what the people can see) and authoritative (wise in their leadership and possess personal integrity).

Statesmen are born through the state\'s constitutional channels and metamorphose from politicians to state administrators with integrity. Ideally, after becoming state administrators, their horizon becomes the state and nation. Even if their old political house is partisan, their position as a state administrator provides them with a broader horizon to look at their constituent’s problems from the national perspective. They fight for their constituents’ interests within the national corridor.

In this dichotomy, politicians apparently do not have the necessary qualifications of statesmanship until they become state administrators. The space where politicians live is outside the state and during that time, they may engage in any political maneuvers.

This dichotomy is misleading. A politician like Tan Malaka never entered the circle of power, but his thinking showed the extent of his care for the state and the nation. His writings continue to inform the journeys of our state administrators and politicians. Bung Hatta also behaved as a statesman from when he was outside the circle of power.

However, it is true that not all state administrators are statesmen. In practice, many state administrators are not professional in managing the state, so the state progresses slowly. The legislative achievements of our legislators from year to year fall far from the target, yet they do not feel that they have failed in representing the people.

Rushing and without a public test, the people have filed petitions with the Constitutional Court against the self-regulating products of their legislation, and the President was unwilling to sign it. The public has been left to judge for themselves who desired the legislation and which state administrators were loyal to the party rather than to the state.

Realizing the noble calling of carrying out state duties, Philippine President Manuel L Quezon (1935-1944) stated: "My loyalty to my party ends when my loyalty to my country begins." Therefore, it is important that a president selects assistants with a similar sense of loyalty, although they may, in fact, come from political parties.

The disabilities of our statesmanship are also visible in the cases that involve state administrators breaking into the state\'s finances systematically and on a massive scale. That is why Indonesia\'s 2017 Corruption Perception Index remained at 37 (on a 0-100 scale) as in previous years, and the country was downgraded from the 90th rank (of 176 countries) to the 96th (of 180 countries), even though the Corruption Eradication Commission have caught many officials red-handed. Such corruption betrays the calling of serving the state.

Politicians and statesmen both work on behalf of the people and understand the ins and outs of the state. Politicians are not necessarily state administrators, but must not lose the characteristics of statesmen by justifying any and all means used in this political struggle. State administrators are certainly politicians and should act as such by not being partisan. It is our duty, the government and the people, escape the trap of liberal democracy.

Yonky Karman, Lecturer, Jakarta Theological Seminary