Maturity of Our Political Elite
The General Elections Commission (KPU) has announced the results of the simultaneous legislative-presidential elections a day earlier than scheduled. The results are that the Joko “Jokowi” Widodo-Ma\'ruf Amin pair won 55.50 percent of the vote, ahead of Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga “Sandi” Uno’s 44.50 percent.
The announcement clearly prompted a mixed response, especially from Prabowo-Sandi supporters. The response that deserves note is that their rejection of the official result was conveyed to the public much earlier. They accused the presidential election of being riddled with fraud, even using inciteful language, which has provoked a large mass of supporters to protest.
The response also indirectly urged Prabowo-Sandi supporters – if they did not agree with the official tally – to challenge the election result at the Constitutional Court. However, the elite in the Prabowo-Sandi camp should demonstrate their political maturity as statesmen through the legal process.
It could be said that the maturity of the political elite backing Prabowo-Sandi is being tested. Even so, the attitude they have taken to reject the official result is questionable, because the election has a mechanism for settling disputes. Ironically, their attitude has been transmitted to their mass of supporters to delegitimize the results of the presidential election.
This situation would not have occurred if this group of political elite was more mature. Unfortunately, the maturity of the political elite is at an alarmingly low level, and their attitude has become a clear barrier to our efforts to realize the future consolidation of democracy.
Low maturity level
The low maturity level of the political elite has triggered a rise in political tensions following the simultaneous elections. The literature defines political maturity as an indicator of how an individual’s electoral competency determines their political choices (Cook & Seglow, 2010). The indicator of an individual’s political maturity can also reveal the political maturity of the elite.
The political maturity indicator can also point to several questions concerning political condition. For example, to what extent are the elite interested in engaging in practical politics? How knowledgeable are the elite in pursuing their political activities? To what extent are the elite consistent and stable in their stance during a political event? (Chan & Clayton, 2006).
First, ownership of political maturity is necessary in order to enable the realization of democratic consolidation. The elite must be more mature in addressing the current political reality. One example of political immaturity is the provocative political narratives that emerged when several survey institutions released the quick count results of the presidential election. The faces of some of the elite filled with tension because they could not accept the reality. What is more alarming is that the elite’s low level of political maturity has impacted the low political maturity of their supporters.
Analyzing the pollsters’ quick count results and the KPU’s real count discredits the elite’s political rationale. This is indeed strange, because the elite are not new to politics. Most have even been knowledgeable in various democratic contestations. In other words, the elite are people who are very experienced in politics and interested in power.
Unfortunately, most of the elite are trapped in temporary political interests so that they forget the greater national agenda of elevate the people\'s welfare through civilized politics.
Second, an individual’s political knowledge also indicates their political maturity. As part of the political elite, they clearly have better knowledge than the lay people who support them. Their political knowledge is illustrated through the political activities they undertake in public, as seen in how the elite are involved in political lobbies, maneuvers and constitutional debates over the state administration.
Ironically, this political elite also undertakes maneuvers that are contrary to existing laws and regulations. It is feared that this elite maneuver will incite conflict among their supporters.
Therefore, if the elite use their political knowledge only for short-term interests – because they are part of a certain group – to ultimately sacrifice the interests of the nation and state, this clearly indicates the political immaturity of our elite.
Caring for NKRI
Third, people need a political elite that is consistent and stable in their behavior and emotions in politics. However, the emotional stability of our political elite was often problematic throughout the stages of the electoral process. It was not uncommon for political party leaders to develop provocative narratives that prompted hatred and anger among the masses against the current political situation – and their groups of supporters are by no means small.
Therefore, what is needed is the elite’s consistency in following the rules of the game according to the mutually agreed law – the Election Law, which regulates everything related to this political contestation. The consistency of the elite in obeying the rules of the game is an indicator of their maturity or immaturity in politics.
Do not let the unfulfilled interests of the political elite sacrifice the noble ideal of the country’s founders to tend to the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI).
The current elite will not hold endless power. There will come a time when they will be replaced by the nation’s children who are even now observing the political attitude and behavior of the elite.
If the elite prioritizes upholding the NKRI, it is not impossible that they will become a part of the history that will be remembered and imitated by the children who will become our future leaders. To reach that stage, political maturity is truly needed among our elite in responding to the political situation today.
Asrinaldi A, Political Science Lecturer at Andalas University; Researcher at Spektrum Politika Institute