Outside of Our Memory

The opposition will be tested by the question of how the control is implemented and for what it is carried out. Without healthy opposition, the critical situation that leads to violence will continue to be repeated.

DIDIE SW

.

At that time the capital city was in critical condition. Almost every day there were demonstrations, especially by students.

Many people demanded that K.H. Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur), the president at that time, resign. Gus Dur was really in a difficult situation. Moreover, the mass media voiced much more interest in the opposition than the president so that the image of the president was really on the edge. Followers of Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) were angry. Many had suggested that there should be a counter demo. However, Gus Dur refused. When the situation had become increasingly critical, several groups within the NU prepared troops to defend Gus Dur. Gus Dur was again prohibited. Gus Dur responded with a phrase that was later very well known: "There is no power worth defending with bloodshed." Gus Dur was impeached without a drop of blood flowing.

Now, in certain contexts, its situation is nearly the same. The difference is, now there are two lives lost, Himawan Randy, 21,  and Muh Yusuf Kardawi, 19, two students at Halu Oleo University, Kendari, Southeast Sulawesi. The ambition of power has taken its toll. The big question is whether these two students are victims of ambition to maintain power or vice versa?

KOMPAS/IWAN SETIYAWAN

K.H. Abdurrahman Wahid

Violence culture

Power can hardly be separated from violence. In royal times, the change of power was almost always colored with bloodshed. Violence became increasingly institutionalized when colonialism entered the archipelago. Resistance against colonialism was confronted with weapons and violence then became a common sight. After Indonesia\'s independence, violence continued. Rebellion after rebellion forced the nation back to use violence to quell it, starting from the PKI rebellion in Madiun, Kartosuwiryo, Daud Beureuh, to the PRRI and Permesta cases.

The transition from Soekarno to Soeharto was also marred by bloodshed with thousands of fatalities in the tragedy of the massacre of PKI activists and sympathizers. More than that, people who were indicated to be involved in PKI activities, directly or indirectly, could be treated very badly, not only by the government but also by the community, including against their families and descendants.

The end of Soeharto\'s rule was also full of violence. The occupation of the House of Representatives by students and various elements of democracy were a softer form of violence. However, at the same time but in different places, violence took the more violent form, full of anger, and fury with increasingly widespread anarchism, mass riots in the capital\'s commercial centers, arson, looting, and arbitrary treatment of against ethnic minority groups.

It did not stop there, violence immediately spread to a number of areas throughout the country. Horizontal conflicts with nuances of violence violently gripped this nation. The Ambon and Maluku cases are the most extreme example of violence by a nation that is considered friendly, tolerant, and moderate.

The Papua case is an example of violence that continues up to the present. This is what Mark Juergensmeyer (1995) calls a culture of violence.

A healthy democracy does not only need a capable, legitimate and integrity ruler, but also needs a healthy opposition.

The tendency to solve problems with violence is clearly a serious threat to the future of a more civilized nation. The birth of democracy is, to certain degree, is a way out of a culture of violence. However, democracy does not always succeed in separating power from violence. Democracy does emphasize non-violence, but the doors of violence are left open. Freedom of opinion as a basic principle of democracy is the door for the entry of violence in the struggle for power. In the name of freedom of expression, the expression of aspirations often results in violence when each party fails to exercise self-control.

Power morality

The problem is not on the violence itself, but the permissive attitude towards violence that is more worrying. The death of the two students really disturbed conscience and common sense. Was the current situation so worrying that lives must be lost? When compared to the situation seconds before Abdurrahman was deposed, the current situation seemed to be nothing. The level of critical condition is much lower than at the end of Gus Dur\'s leadership. This is where the morality of power is really questioned. The question of morality is not only addressed to the authorities, but also to the opposition, both in DPR and outside the DPR. Because, there is a widespread assumption, the more anarchist demonstrations are, the more worthy of attention will be; the more victims falling in demonstrations, especially death, the more the demands are granted.

This logic is a defamation of human dignity. A healthy democracy does not only need a capable, legitimate and integrity ruler, but also needs a healthy opposition. Healthy opposition is not determined by how much the mass that supports, but by how strong the moral argument that underlies.

When the opposition which was only ceremonial ended with the destruction of Europe after the first World War, several kingdoms collapsed as a result of the victory of the United States and Britain.

The experience of many countries shows that not all opposition is carried out in a healthy manner. As stated by Marcus Mietzner (1988) of the Australian National University, the development of opposition as a movement that frontally controls the government has undergone four phases. First, opposition which is only ceremonial as happened in the early days of its growth, especially in Europe. At the end of the 18th century, European countries experienced socio-political stagnation due to the inability to overcome various problems. The kingdoms that generally ruled in Europe spent their energy by engaging in wars against their neighbors to expand their territory. The victims of this elite politics were the small people who had to donate their crops for war purposes. In that situation, the people began to question the legitimacy of the king. Therefore, the king then appointed a cabinet as an institution where the people\'s voice could channel their aspirations, but the decision remained in the hands of the king.

Second, destructive-opportunistic opposition. When the opposition which was only ceremonial ended with the destruction of Europe after the first World War, several kingdoms collapsed as a result of the victory of the United States and Britain. Germany and several other countries became republics with a parliamentary system. And every four years elections are held. The inter-party coalition chose the prime minister who formed his cabinet responsible to the parliament. Parties not included in the cabinet will be in opposition with the task of controlling the government. However, the opposition parties in Germany at that time argued that their job was only to harm the image of the government in such a way that the opposition party could take over power as soon as possible.

Third, the concept of fundamental-ideological opposition. In this concept, the opposition does not only want to overthrow the government and gain power, but also wants to replace the legislative system, even the foundation of the state. Apart from the Nazi Party, the Communist Party also belongs to this category. When the opposition takes on a destructive-opportunist or fundamental-ideological form, naturally the ruling government does not last long and is replaced almost every year.

Fundamental-ideological opposition ever occurred when the PKI tried to seize power. And when the New Order came to power, the opposition was only ceremonial.

Fourth, the concept of constructive-democratic opposition. Society\'s dissatisfaction against ceremonial opposition leads to the emergence of the concept of radical opposition in the form of destructive and fundamental-ideological opposition. The practice of the opposition is even increasingly destroying the basis of democracy and allows the authoritarian regime to rise again. On the basis of this bitter experience the concept of constructive-democratic opposition was born.

Unlike the three previous concepts of opposition, the concept of constructive-democratic opposition emphasizes the continuity of the upholding of democracy by placing common interests above groups or groups. Therefore, the role and function of this opposition is very important in order to guarantee the sustainability of the democratic system.

Except for the latter type of opposition, Indonesia has experienced the above opposition phases. At the beginning of independence, Indonesia experienced a destructive-opportunist opposition when the cabinet collapsed into parliamentary democracy in the 1950s. The fall of Gus Dur can also be seen from this perspective. Fundamental-ideological opposition ever occurred when the PKI tried to seize power. And when the New Order came to power, the opposition was only ceremonial.

The opposition will be tested by the question of how the control is implemented and for what control it is carried out.

The strengthening of the spirit of opposition in the reform era is certainly a good signal for a more supervised management of power. The success of the institutionalization of the opposition is largely determined by the extent to which the opposition forces can carry out the role of maximum control without giving birth to meaningful social and political turmoil. A healthy opposition is not only determined by the ability to exercise tight control over the government, evaluating whether a political step taken by the government in accordance with the law, political ethics or efficiency and rationality standards, but also determined by the ability to develop more visionary counter concepts so that the process of permanent refreshment can continuously take place.

Getting out of the critical situation is only possible if the government succeeds in building public trust by working effectively to fulfill campaign promises. This is where the opposition is needed to ensure that the performance of the government actually runs on the tracks of legislation, according to political ethics and efficiency standards. The opposition will be tested by the question of how the control is implemented and for what control it is carried out. Without healthy opposition, the critical situation that leads to violence will continue to be repeated.

Agus Muhammad, Researcher at the Association of Islamic Boarding School and Society Development (P3M) Jakarta