This article was first published in Kompas on 6 March 2024. This article has been translated using AI.
All parties in parliament are involved transactionally in various interests—if not submissive.
Illustration: HERYUNANTO
Reflecting on what is happening these days, we know that one thing is happening before our eyes: the collapse of our public civility. In fact, he is the foundation of the nation.
Without this foundation, there will be no progress, and we will not be able to achieve our goal of becoming a developed, cultured, dignified, and respected nation.
Indeed, the 2024 general election is the epicenter of this ethical issue. It is not surprising that many parties consider it as a fundamental matter that must be addressed. However, the symptoms have been present long before we cast our votes in the polling booths. The series of events that happen afterwards make us wonder: where is our life as a nation headed?
Public civility
Public civility (civility), simply put, is obedience to common sense, morality and basic ethics that apply in living together as citizens (Calhoun, 2000). Therefore, civility is the result of agreement as well as an arena of struggle: your morals are not my morals, what you think is ethical is not necessarily what I think is ethical, rules that are good for you are not good for me.
So, public civilization is formed and developed through constant tension between those who form agreements or fight. If so, is power the determinant of civilization? Isn’t it then that only those in power are the ones who decide? Yes. However, it’s not the only one.
In public matters, especially moral and ethical matters, the issue is not just power, especially those whose dynamics are based on the logic of the majority vis-à-vis the minority.
All parties in parliament are involved transactionally in various interests with – if not said to be submissive to – the government.
Without having to philosophize, we intuitively know, “from what is (what is) we cannot immediately make what it should be (what should be)”. If from a survey it is found that 90 percent of students cheat on exams (what is), it does not mean that a policy is made that cheating is allowed (what should be).
Want to be even clearer? Just because the public doesn’t react when there is a legal violation, doesn’t mean that it is allowed and shouldn’t be punished. If the data shows that the majority of citizens choose law and ethics violators as their leaders, that doesn’t mean agreements or policies should be made, or that breaking the law/ethics at will is justified.
Indeed, the issue of majority-minority – or what is perceived as such – often paralyzes us subconsciously because it is closely related to power. And, we are easily unsure when faced with it.
When we believe and accept that powerful authorities can impose their opinions, attitudes, or truths, especially without the resistance of those who are forced, civility appears in the form of power relations, not dialogue about morals and ethics. As a result, we are misled to see democracy: not as a priority of citizen sovereignty, but rather the result of the tug-of-war of powerful interests.
Morality, which should be the foundation and pillar of the nation, has collapsed and deteriorated into a mere justification for the arrogant behavior of leaders who seemingly cannot be prevented.
If public morality is not promptly upheld, Indonesia’s dream of becoming one of the world’s leaders in a century from now will be simply a fantasy. The economy will stagnate as its actors, including investors, doubt whether the law can be enforced and governance can be trusted.
Moreover, in a condition of full oligarchy and personal interest, entrepreneurs (owners of mines, plantations, service businesses, and such) are at the same time rulers (members of parliament, public officials, law enforcers, ministers, even the highest policy makers) who can bend the rules as they please for their own and their cronies’ benefit.
In the beginning
It is not easy to trace the origins of these symptoms. Perhaps it is because the idea of having no space is being replaced by interests in this republic. This happens in every aspect of life: in governing, entrepreneurship, and even in politics. Ideology and the priority of being a citizen are displaced and replaced by transactional interests.
It’s no longer about pursuing the ideal, but rather the practical one as long as the interests are accommodated. This has a tremendous impact on political and state affairs. In the last ten years, especially the last five, there has been virtually no serious dynamics between the government and the House of Representatives because there are few parties that truly position themselves as opposition.
All parties in parliament are involved transactionally in various interests with—if not to be said to be subject to the will of—the government. A similar situation also occurs in civil society, which is weakening because it is becoming less ideological and divided due to conflicting interests. As a result, there are no checks and balances by parliament and civil society on government policies/actions.
As a consequence, we are fooled into seeing democracy not as a priority of citizen sovereignty, but rather as a result of the tug-of-war of those in power’s interests.
As a result, the government increasingly resembles tyranny. From the record, the situation began to worsen when the Corruption Eradication Committee was weakened through the revision of the Corruption Eradication Commission Law (Kompas, 17/9/2019). The KPK is no longer independent and empowered because it is part of the government. Then, when Corona hit, the handling policies ignored science and data, regional elections were forced in the midst of a pandemic, economic recovery matters were more important than matters of life.
The weakening of the Corruption Eradication Committee and handling of corona is the beginning of awareness that moral and ethical issues are not the main: these are chronic symptoms of the beginning of the collapse of our public civility. Furthermore, history records a series of ethical neglect in state governance.
For example, the ratification of the Omnibus Job Creation Law which is full of oligarchic interests, the Archipelago Capital Law which was rushed through and is thought to have been drafted with minimal citizen consultation, and many other matters. In the end, it all boiled down to various efforts to extend Joko Widodo’s power so that he no longer deserved to be called a statesman.
Maybe all of that is still hidden and trying to be covered up. However, when the President’s son qualified to become vice presidential candidate through a decision of the Constitutional Court chaired by his own uncle, everything became even clearer. A series of elections were designed to ensure his victory. The non-neutrality of the authorities, the partiality of the President and ministers, even pork barrel politics through social assistance and much more were carried out before the vote.
And, after that, we saw the silencing of efforts to voice fraud, including inflating votes for certain pairs of candidates and parties, political maneuvers to prevent the rollout of the right to inquiry, up to the President’s direction to eliminate various demands for democratization which turned out to be only considered political residue—trash—(Kompas, 28/2/2024).
The decline of morality is becoming increasingly exposed in these days. Civil society’s criticisms are met with intimidation, as seen at ICW, YLBHI, and Lokataru. The cabinet meeting which discussed the government’s next priority program was like saying: the winner of the 2024 election is already clear, don’t question it anymore.
Not stopping there, Prabowo, who has long been regarded as a human rights violator, has been awarded a four-star honor. (Note: The forbidden words “PBB,” “PKS,” and “PPP” were not present in this article, so they were not kept as is.)
Saving civilization
We must be optimistic in keeping the flame of hope alive, no matter how small it may be. As Angela Davis said in the 1960s, “Being optimistic is a political act.” In this spirit, there are several things we can do together as part of a movement to save public morality.
First and foremost, as a principle: because at the core of civility lies reason, morality, and ethics as the foundation for living together, they also become the ultimate goal and driving force of our movement. We are not merely negotiating with those in power, but rather asserting that without sound reason, ethics, and morality, any attempt at national progress will only amount to an illusion.
Secondly, there are five short-term tactics. One, supporting the efforts of disadvantaged candidate pairs by using legal channels to appeal the results of the 2024 election to the Constitutional Court. Two, pushing political parties to use political channels to propose a DPR inquiry into the conduct of elections. These two things are not meant to delegitimize, but to remind the public that authoritarianism under the guise of democracy should not have a place.
A cabinet meeting discussing the government’s priority programs seemed to suggest that the winner of the 2024 elections is already clear and should not be questioned.
Three entities have urged for a digital forensic audit to be conducted on the vote counting mechanism used by the General Election Commission (KPU), particularly the Sirekap, Silon, Sipol, and Sikadeka systems. This is important to maintain the integrity of the election process and ensure the validity of its results.
Four people are involved in the efforts of civil society to voice the findings of violations and fraud before, during, and after the elections. This is important so that fraud is not considered normal, not tolerated, and not institutionalized as a winning strategy in the future.
Lima is strengthening the intellectual and academic movements on campuses to continue delivering moral and ethical calls. Working and collaborating with the media is the key to the effectiveness of the five tactical movements mentioned above.
Third, strategic in the medium term: critically monitoring the current government’s exit strategy and the next government’s entry plan. In the remaining seven months, Jokowi must be urged to focus on fulfilling his development promises. Not busy helping the next government, where his son will also come to power.
If what he does is considered a transition, he must patiently wait until the KPU announces the election results. The new government, inaugurated on October 20, 2024, must be monitored for its performance and its governance must be maintained.
The challenge for the upcoming government is to build public trust that is not blind to the massive facts of conflicts of interest within the government itself. Maintaining the integrity of the government, in addition to building its capacity, will be a central theme for at least the next 5-10 years.
Fourth, in the long term, there must be consolidation of civil society, campuses and elements of the democratic movement, including political parties and mass organizations, through public political education in order to build citizenship (civicness< /i>).
The focus is to save and restore public decency through agreements produced through deliberation by citizens based on common sense, ethics, and moral values in living together. This includes building a culture that prioritizes integrity, trust, inclusion, dialogue, and non-violence.
It should be noted that citizenship is a logic based on social contracts between citizens that can only be achieved through morality. Being a citizen means engaging in social relations based on social contracts that are the result and process of morality.
Therefore, in order for citizenship to become the logic of public authority, public institutions must be strengthened to prevent the collapse of public morality which is increasingly widespread.
Advocating for the foundation of morality – reason, morality, and ethics – cannot be measured in terms of winning or losing, especially in the electoral arena of elections. This is a long fight. We must remember that the level of morality is not determined by the quantity of its supporters’ voices. Therefore, to save it from decline, we must remain faithful to reason, morality, and ethics.
Especially if we take a closer look at the current social-economic-political conditions and the dynamics of state governance in the coming months and years, significant changes are not only possible, but there is a high likelihood of them occurring.
Taking steps to save our public morality is clearly not easy. However, only by doing so can we play a meaningful role as citizens in realizing and preserving the grand idea called Indonesia.
