Preventing the Heat from Burning

HERYUNANTO

.

Political tensions are heating up ahead of the 2019 general election, not only among the elites, but also at the grassroots level.

If such tensions are not addressed it is feared it will lead to disharmony – even disorganization and disintegration – of the nation and society.

This disharmony arose during the 2014 general election, which was followed by simultaneous regional elections. Expressions of political differences are frequently delivered in aggressive and discouraging ways. This is worsened by the use of ethnicity, religion, tribal affiliation and inter-group (SARA) issues or sentiments to fuel controversy and emotion.

A particularly emotional example was the blasphemy case of then-Jakarta governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama ahead of the 2017 Jakarta gubernatorial election. Other cases, such as the persecution and opposition to ulemas and community figures, the criminalization of ulemas, attacks against ulemas by "insane people", have also added to tensions in the community. Disharmony on social media has been even more raucous. Social media has been abuzz with a noisy and overexcited war of words, memes, hashtags, mutual attacks and sarcasm. All this leads to the polarization of electoral politics.

Over the last several weeks, for example, there has been a new wave of opposition to the #2019GantiPresiden (#ChangePresident) movement in a number of regions. There are pros and cons of each side. On the one hand, the #2019GantiPresiden movement has said it is exercising its right to freedom of assembly and opinion guaranteed by the constitution and the law, arguing that all forms of suppression are restraints on freedom of expression. On the other hand, counter groups argue the movement is disturbing the peace and harmony of society because it is seen as attacking and showing disrespect to the President by spreading hatred, dividing society and engaging smear campaigns. Some have even called the movement treasonous and argued it could disturb security and political stability.

In search of consensus

For every sharp difference that threatens the harmony, integrity and unity of the nation, we should try to find consensus or common ground — from the starting point of safeguarding the nation’s interests above those of individuals, groups and classes.

The reforms of 1998 brought the winds of freedom and rising participation of the people in various aspects of the life of the nation and state. We accepted democracy as the state system, guaranteeing the freedom of individuals and groups to exercise their rights and freedoms as citizens. The amended 1945 Constitution introduced many additional articles and paragraphs on human rights. The Constitution also contains a chapter dedicated to human rights, Chapter XA, starting from Article 28A to Article 28J. This shows how the state strengthens respect for and the protection of the rights of citizens.

Freedom of association, assembly and the expression of one\'s own opinion are guaranteed by Article 28 of the constitution, which is reaffirmed in Article 28E Paragraph 3: "Everyone has the right to freedom of association, assembly and opinions." Operationally, the guarantee of rights is affirmed and elaborated in Law No. 39 of 1999 on human rights and Law No. 9 of 1998 on freedom to express opinions in public.

The question is, can the exercise of one’s human rights be carried out freely? The 1945 Constitution in fact provides clear limits in Article 28J. The limitation is respect for the human rights of others in society, the nation and the state (Paragraph 1). Moreover, in exercising our rights and freedom, everyone must abide by restrictions stipulated by law with the sole purpose of guaranteeing the recognition and respect for the rights and freedom of others and to fulfill just demand in accordance with the considerations of morality, religious values, security and public order in a democratic society (Article 2).

The fulfillment of the articles on human rights in the Constitution requires consensus and common ground. In the exercise of their rights and freedoms, all citizens must adhere to the following principles: 1) guarantee of the protection of the human rights of everyone; 2) respect for the human rights of others, and 3) the exercise of rights and freedom is carried out responsibly. Greatness of mind and a spacious heart in exercising one’s rights and freedom, while respecting the freedom of others to exercise their human rights and freedom is needed -- as long as they are carried out responsibly and within the corridors of the law and rules.

In regards to the #2019GantiPresiden and the #2019TetapJokowi (#2019ConintueWithJokowi) movements, for example, as long as they are carried out according to the rules, every citizen should respect their freedom of expression, as guaranteed by the constitution. Groups that seek to obstruct, dissolve or persecute the movements certainly cannot be justified and contradict the spirit of freedom and human rights in the constitution.

A person or group can only sue if they find an act that violates the law. A criminal act should be reported and processed through the available legal procedures, not addressed by taking the law into one’s own hands, as the Constitution expressly states that Indonesia is a nation based on the rule of law. In a state of law, someone cannot be punished for what they say, let alone what they think. Even if an organization states it wants to establish an independent state separate from the Republic of Indonesia, the state cannot act until there is a real threat such as the taking up of arms.

Appropriate role of the apparatus

In a situation of widespread disharmony, the state security apparatus, such as the police, is faced with a dilemma. The police are often pressured and blamed for carrying out actions. However, we can understand if the police finally take steps to avoid the outbreak of physical conflict. The police are faced with their dual obligations to the state’s interests and the rights of the citizens while simultaneously there are conflicts among citizens.

Herein lies the dilemma for the police that exists not only in Indonesia, but universally. On the one hand, if the police prioritize their obligation to maintain order, but this leads to a violation of human rights, it means the police face responsibility for human rights violations. Article 18 of Law No. 9 of 1998 stipulates punishments for acts of violence or threats of violence used to prevent citizens from expressing their opinions in public. Similarly, the police could intend to defend the rights of one group, but this could result in other groups violating their human rights.

In the context of political battles, if the police act in error, the consequences are not only felt by the police but can have political impacts, especially for presidential-vice presidential pairs. The police can get carried away with politicization, which is clearly not good, as the National Police are tasked with guarding and promoting their neutrality and independence.

State organizers and officials in power or close to power must assert their position so as not to be careless and indiscriminate when taking actions that can be perceived as siding with certain candidate pairs or even "tyrannizing" other partners.

We should stop the attitude of "tyrannizing" political opponents because this will only result in endless resentment in later generations. Political revenge is very counterproductive. Politically, the losing party will continue to undermine the winning party. When will this nation act like our predecessors who united against the threat of the invaders and shouted the word "freedom"?

We hope to have a leader who has a spacious spirit and a big heart, who does not fan the flames of hate speech, but contributes to "defending" his political opponents when cornered by his supporters with fake news and hate speech.

Reflecting on a country that has matured in democracy, however hot the political rivalries are, the candidates must hold one attitude — whoever the winner is, they are accepted. In this case, we can learn from John McCain and Barack Obama\'s rivalry in the 2008 United States general election. McCain, who recently passed away, publicly defended Obama when during his campaign a supporter called Obama an Arab with a tone of hatred. McCain defended his rival by asserting that Obama was a US citizen, a good man who loved his family, who only happened to have different thoughts about fundamental issues. This is a good example of political contestation.

KOMPAS/HERU SRI KUMORO

Farouk Muhammad

All of us hope the heat of the political temperature does not interfere with national stability. Do not let political differences make us hostile to each other. We must encourage the political elites, especially the presidential-vice presidential pairs, to meet in an atmosphere of togetherness and formulate a politically polite, cool and dignified consensus.

This consensus must be to oppose smear campaigns, the spread of hoaxes and hate speech. Furthermore, the presidential and vice presidential pairs and political elites should actively clarify – not permit or even enjoy – such smears about their political opponents.

Jokowi-Prabowo\'s warm hug initiated by Hanifan, the pencak silat gold medalist at the Asian Games, could serve as a moment to build consensus. Furthermore, we hope it will not stop there, but continue with other hospitable meetings to show the people that the unity and integrity of the nation is prioritized above all else. If this is done, this writer believes that the disharmony that has spread because of the heat of current political tensions will not burn this nation.

Farouk Muhammad, member of the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) from the West Nusa Tenggara electoral district