Culture of Civil and Civilized Politics

The cultural atmosphere of politics as it heats up our nation-state appears to be directed less towards the culture of civil and civilized politics. This politico-cultural trend this is not only heard in the language used in verbal discourse, but is also seen in the visuals imagery of the photographs being circulated.

The cultural atmosphere of politics as it heats up our nation-state – as seen on social media and in the mass media, both print and electronic – appears to be directed less towards the culture of civil and civilized politics.

This politico-cultural trend this is not only heard in the language used in verbal discourse, but is also seen in the visuals imagery of the photographs being circulated.

However, we must also question the truth behind all this. Is the political culture truly in alignment with the political reality, or is it mere sensationalism to create uproar and commotion on the political scene ahead of the general election? What is the actual public perception of the politics that our nation-state has inherited?

The thinker who first discussed politics in public discourse was the Greek philosopher Socrates, whose dialogue was published as Republic by his student, the philosopher Plato. When it first appeared, the word politik did not carry as negative an interpretation as it does today. In the beginning, “politics” was very noble in its definition and incorporated "the art of managing the nation-state" and "for the public good”. However, this word has inadvertently fallen victim to pejorative evolution or perjoration (a change in a word’s meaning for the worse) in our nation-state.

Towards substantive democracy

If we hear the word politik today, then our perception will certain associate it with “tactics”, “engineering”, “deception”,  “ingenuity”,  “cunning”,  “scapegoating“,  “horse-trading“,  “personality cults“,  “infighting”,  “derogation“,  “slander“ and other words of the like that have negative connotations. Will the word politik continue to be constantly perceived this way? Will these perceptions always prevail in relation to the actions and behavior of the political elite and politicians? Will no efforts be made to restore the politik to its original meaning that possessed a positive connotation?

The answers to such questions are important to our nation-state. It is necessary for the elite and politicians to interpret the word politik without any negative connotations. Of course, a positive interpretation will also have implications for the actions and behavior of the elite and politicians, who must be good from here on out. Isn’t our political evolution measured by the direction of our politics?

Our politics should head toward civility and being civilized as represented through thought (intention), oral expression (discourse) and actions (behavior) of our politicians. This is the political culture that we greatly hope will color our political reality as our nation-state moves towards a substantive democracy.

Fulfilling such standards would lead to the automatic emergence of political excellence, because politics in the shared home of our nation-state must be supported by correct political perceptions and high political literacy. As politik develops towards the positive meaning of “for the public good”, all citizens must also be literate in politics, just as they are obliged to be knowledgeable of state laws.

The implication is that the mindset of the political elite and politicians that perceive politik to simply mean gaining power (victory) is not enough – never mind justifying all their means, tricks and tactics that are devoid of truths, facts, and data. Such a mindset only damages the social order and political culture that have been developed gradually and well to incur losses for the nation-state.

Why is this? It is because real power is not the primary goal in a nation-state that adheres to substantive democracy.

Power is simply a vehicle or an opportunity: a vehicle or opportunity for those in power to grow public prosperity. Improving the welfare of all is the primary goal of a substantive democracy.

Therefore, skills, sincerity and genuineness are needed to manage the nation-state. In this context, the German philosopher Hegel posited in the Philosophy of History an ideal for the political culture of good governance in that the policies of a ruling government must be in accordance with the people’s interests.

Succession (general elections) is thus a cycle that must indeed exist and run for the continuity of democratic nation-states. Democratic nation-states must periodically and continuously undergo change, refreshment and strengthening.

Consequently, we must understand the general elections as an inherent cycle that brings routine change and regulates democracy. It is not the other way around: a contest or even an intergroup battle that embroils the supporters of the opposing sides.

Such an understanding is very dangerous, because it will cause the nation-state to become divided and separated in an environment of mutual hostility and opposition. This was, of course, part of feudal politics, and was left behind as politics evolved into its modern form. So to reiterate, we must understand the general elections in a more advanced way of thinking as a routine and regular norm. Thus, the individual who is capable of leading the nation-state towards advancement and increased strength should be supported wholeheartedly.

If we understand the election as regular (a cycle), people must engage in argument discourse prior to an election and afterwards, they must be able to collaborate. This behavior has not been realized in our political reality. What continues to occur is that, people argue before an election, only to remain divided in opposing camps after an election, as though they were eternal enemies.

Whereas in fact, people should be able to collaborate dynamically post-election by involving any and all in managing the country, as long as the nation requires their potential and the human resources to develop and advance. When will the elite and politicians in our political world gain the wisdom to nurture the will to collaborate?

Contesting for the good

The elite and politicians should not strive to defeat each other the election, but instead contest their virtue and excellence. They should not spread fear (like genderuwo) or hoaxes, but instead seek to sow virtue and excellence through their vision, mission and work programs once they are elected.

It is also necessary for the people to be wary and aware that the campaigns’ vision, mission, and programs are not utopian (in the clouds), but are effective and realistic, can be implemented and can benefit the people. The vision, mission, and programs of a campaign must also be backed by the candidate’s proven performance and actual achievements. This is important so that the campaigns do not focus merely on influencing (swaying) voters and are not full of empty promises, but contain real promises that can be proven through the candidate’s genuineness once they have been elected into power.

In a maturing democracy whose quality is improving, it is necessary for the electoral contestants to demonstrate their capacity for ethical politics, or that they are skilled in political ethics. One way that their capabilities become evident is in the civility of their communication and political behavior that prompts calm among the people of the shared home of our nation-state. But “civil and polite communication” must not be assumed to mean mild or gentle, because each contestant has their own communication style.

Having a variety of choices is the characteristic of a healthy democracy. Making different choices does not mean that we cannot be brothers, but that we can still maintain good ties and work together, despite our differences, to sustain national unity and integrity upon our inclusive awareness of being a citizen of this nation-state.

To repeat, our politics must head towards a substantive democracy, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; an evolution from a procedural democracy to a democracy serves to improve the welfare of the people.

In the same vein, moving towards a culture of civil and civilized politics means a will and ability to engage through clean politics, not dirty politics. In this kind of political culture, politics does not involve the politicization of SARA (tribal affiliations, religion, race and societal groups) issues, poverty or other issues that have been politicized baselessly.

This kind of political culture must also be committed to reducing the burdens of the nation-state, especially intolerance and corruption. This kind of political culture is essentially more transformational than it is transactional, and prompts transformation in all areas towards betterment and advancement.

IB Putera Manuaba, Lecturer and Professor, Literature and Culture Graduate Program, the School of Cultural Studies, Airlangga University