Provocative Campaign Banality
Provocative election campaigns are still an acute problem in several minor or major democracies.
This problem was not only felt in the elite circle, but also at the local level. Its peak – conflict between the supporters of the two 2019 presidential candidate pairs – was inevitable. In Sampang, Madura, two young men fought over a quarrel concerning different political views. The argument initially emerged on social media and then ended in a fight in the real world with the death of one of the supporters.
A similar case of cyberspace disputes that erupted in the real world also happened in 2014. Starting out as a Twitter debate between Joko Widodo and Prabowo Subianto supporters, two young men agreed to resolve the debate in the real world. Fortunately, the duel did not result in a death, because both men came empty-handed.
Long before cases of political violence spread nationwide, political violence at the local level also left behind tragedy. This happened in 2006 in connection with the election of a village head in Central Bujur, Pamekasan regency. At that time, public carok (duels) commonly occurred in relation to a dispute over village-owned lands between the village head-elect and the former village head. The two groups of supporters – for Central Bujur Village Head Mursyidin and a group led by former Central Bujur village head Baidlowi clashed in a mass carok that claimed seven lives.
Banality of campaigns
Not all incidences of political violence that have occurred in the history of democracy come from political campaigns. However, if we look at recent cases, especially political violence that leads to a civilian’s death, these certainly do not reflect the political ethics at the elite level. However, political violence often erupts from the provocative campaigns of the elite. The elite are unable to learn how to campaign without provoking public anger.
A psychological war is raging on social media and in mainstream media. This is easily observable when members of the political elite appear in public spaces to present mere rhetoric and verbal attacks without accurate data.
Not infrequently, even the national campaign “success” teams use inappropriate words. This narrative model put our politics in a violent, scary and fear-provoking political situation. Curses and insults using the names of animals (like cebong/tadpole and kampret/baby bat) are flung at each other, pushing public logic down to the level of animals. So it is entirely relevant that Aristotle (384-322 BC) said humans were political animals (Zoon Politikon).
The diction and narratives developed in this way have an impact on today’s public spaces, alienating people with unsubstantial issues. These narratives are even developed to generate hatred among the
public. Fortunately, people are smarter about taking the issues to a better direction and are not easily provoked.
In retrospect, the rising banality of provocative campaigns is linked to two key issues. First, the political elite are sociologically incapable of establishing a tradition of political consolidation for the sake of mature public civility. This is clearly seen in how the elite who win an election almost never pursue political consolidation with the losing candidate. In fact, not infrequently, a defeat aggravates deep political wounds.
The Jakarta gubernatorial election provided a magnifying glass on how political consolidation fails, only to cause political wounds to drag on into the 2019 presidential election. Differences in political views cannot be actualized as maximized awareness and interaction for maintaining a sense of mutual unity and cooperation. Issues of paganism, hypocrisy and even cutting someone out of one’s prayers because of their different political views are an accumulation of the flaws in our democratic process. This behavior is only growing stronger because the elite are unable to step in and mediate, so religious issues remain in the heart of the public. The polarization and divisiveness that have occurred in politics are the accumulation of a democratic process that has been flawed for a long time.
Second, extreme political fanaticism increasingly erodes critical thinking among the public. With such a condition, the responses to sociopolitical problems, the people\'s economy, poverty and justice are based in ideological opposition, and resistance is then carried out by coercing the will. As a result, wise responses are lacking, even in very basic matters, and are instead considered dangerous. Coercion pushes individual towards an ideological perspective. It is therefore unsurprising that coercion is frequently utilized in mobilizing the masses in the name of religion.
What emerges is thus electoral disorientation, wherein the political orientation often does not represent the public voice, but rather the elite voice. This has also occurred in election campaigns. The political elite and their national campaign teams are more inclined to defend the candidates they support rather than maintaining local conduciveness. In the end, the public loses because they are influenced by undignified and provocative campaigns.
Systemic steps needed
This condition indicates an urgent need to “save” the campaigns through systemic measures from destroying political ethics. In fact, looking back, this “emergency assistance” should be unnecessary if our elite did not run provocative campaigns.
But what can be done? The banality of provocative campaigns has already taken its toll, with civilians who do not necessarily comprehend the problem with national politics becoming its victims.
Therefore, establishing a tradition of grooming reliable politicians and statesmen is key. Bung Karno, Bung Hatta and Syahrir were exemplars of reliable statesmen that emerged and developed over a long process. They fought, not for party interests and the elite, but for the people. The people are the "orientation" of champion statesmen, not the will of their political backers.
(Aminuddin, Executive Director, Political Literacy and Education for Democracy (Pokasi))