Populism on the rise : Indonesia
The decline of Indonesia’s democracy amidst the rise of populist movement led by political, ethnic, and sectarian elites that sought to divide the nation.
Indonesia by its constitution is a democratic country. It also has been known as one of the biggest country in term of its population on the whole world, fourth only to China, India, and United States. Not only that, with multitude amounts of socio-cultural and economical variations that exists within it, saying that this is one of the biggest democracy to ever exist on the global scale won’t really be an overstatement.
Based on what was stated on Article 1 paragraph (2) of The Consitution of Republic of Indonesia, the constitution certainly gave the mandate for the nation to form a government based on democratic value. The voice of the people must be first and foremost laid supreme, executed by constitutional power that is written upon laws that is considered as a legal product. Therefore, the government runs by the voice of the people and its decree is an amalgamation of people’s will. Vox Populi, Vox Dei.
“My struggle was easier because it’s against foreign invaders, but your struggle will be more difficult because it’d be against your own nation”
- Soekarno, The 1st President of Indonesia.
After it had survived 1998 wave of government reformation, it has now developed into a democratic freedom fest that there is today. Yet, the world took a hard turn for the past few years, with the rise of political populist movements that weaponizes sectarian, chauvinist, or straight up racist rhetoric that gave way to mob rule in many nations globally. Indonesia, in the age of global information freedom with the rise of technology is facing a challenge like never before. Could its cultural development evolves fast enough to catch up with the rapid and ever-accelerating growth of technology?
A Nation of the people
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”
- George Santayana
Based on Black’s law Dictionary, nation is a collective, institutionalized group of people with multitude amount of backgrounds. Often, these people follows one certain constitution that dictates how the institution would form a governmental system to serve its interest. A nation is a tool for the people to unite under one banner to achieve a common goal.
A nation should not be selfish, albeit it won’t be able to satisfy the will of every one of its subject. The debate of best of few or modest of most would always be on each side of the scale, forcing those who sits on the seat of power to decide upon those dilemmas. The choice would be whether this person care only to several vocal interest groups, or is it going to serve the entirety of its populace.
Indonesia, a nation that covers multitude diversity since far before its concept founded at least by 1928 (by the youth pledge declaration, known better as sumpah pemuda) and institutionalized by 1945 with its declaration of independence (better known as proklamasi kemerdekaan). Even when its constitution was still formulated on July 1945, there were debates between the islamic group and nationalist group amidst the phrases of “to enact islamic sharia (law) upon its believer” Jakarta Charter that later to be instilled upon its preambule after a compromise reached — with Ki Bagus Hadikusumo as its key person — to remove the 7 words in the final clause upon Indonesia’s constitution. That event marked the example on how the conscience and willingness to put national unity before ideological identity within the formulation of Indonesia.
Alas, as the famous quote that was written by George Santayana that says “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, the people of this great nation doomed to repeat its past. The rise of sectarian and identity politic practice has ravaged this nation once more, dividing the nation into opposing forces that refuse to listen to each others. Take the example of 2019’s election “cebong” and “kampret” phenomenon, the election that divide the people behind its presidential candidate and define their political view upon that notion. Also the preceding “212 Movement” that sought to deny the 2016 gubernatorial election’s candidate Basuki Tjahaja Purnama due to to his Christian background due to his blasphemous “religious defamation” allegation gave rise to that conflict.
That was a blatant social division strategy in an attempt to rally people’s support while using religion as its “just cause” that was actually a subtle sectarian movement underneath. They purposely politicize Islam and interpret it to fit their agenda, failing to see its future impact towards the national’s political climate. Due to the effect of ailing government and cancerous rhetoric that twists the mind of unsuspecting majority, these charismatic leader easily swayed portions of populations to be willingly turned into mere political instrument and numbers.
Truly, radical movements would have bigger of guarantee visible results upon its enactment — thus inciting radical democracy by reintroducing conflict as theorized by Ernesto Laclau. Charismatic leader with its massive media coverage would be the key of its sustainability — and yet as time passes, they’ll eventually perish. Just like the fall of the New Order in 1998 that preludes the reformation, things would get out of order when and if these populist movement took control of the government and losing their grip over the years.
Freedom is respecting the rights of each constituent, that no one is left out from the national’s goal — that is to be free, united, sovereign, fair, and fulfilled. Thus, illiberalism as a result of misdirected power play should be averted, because Indonesia is a nation that is belong to the people. Therefore, upon this nation of the people, is it fair to let those part that claimed to be the majority to snatch the rights of its sidelined minority?
Who is “the People”
“O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may ˹get to˺ know one another. Surely the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you. Allah is truly All-Knowing, All-Aware.”
- Q.S. Al-Hujurat (49): 13
A nation would be (more often than not) consist of diverse social groups united under an agreed identity to form an imagined community as characterized by Benedict Anderson. This diversity of background is a natural occurrence that needs to be respected to maintain the structural integrity of the said nation. That difference should be a point that enhance each community to enrich their culture by knowing one another in order to achieve sustainable development.
That supposed to be what happened, but instead people often politicize the phrase of “the people” inside their rhetoric in order to fit their agenda. using the phrase in order to garner support from what seems to be marginalized society while forsaking others, further repeating the sin that they’d campaigned to break in the first place. It might be true that no human could ever be free from their politics for they do have their own ego at hand all the time, yet is it alright to normalize it?
When we speak about the people, it should covers all, no matter what their background might be. Whether if they are rich, poor, powerful, weak, majority, minority, privileged, marginalized, everyone is the people and that should always be remembered lest it start to form a divisive seed of conflict. Often, popular cause that manipulate the sense of people’s hero would sow the seed of “us vs them”, saying that they are inclusive while acting all-exclusive against the other “undesirable” populace, twisting the truth and dogma to fit their agenda.
Populism sometimes considered as a folkloric approach of politic where this one charismatic leader amassing the support of its populace and mobilize it into action. Maximizing the media attention by utilizing its unique selling point and marketing communication approaches, trying to sell its agenda for their benefit. The more dramatic it could be, the better. Often, they’d employ the strategy that pits two side against each other with the jargon of “the struggle of the people against the elites, together with a courageous leader”. Little do they know they were being mobilized by another elites that seek to control their way of thinking, 1984 style.
Take the case of Basuki Tjahaja Purnama’s case on 2016 as an example, they pit his background as elite minority — which undoubtedly racist — thus denying his political right to rule due to his blunder that seems to chip the pride of Moslem majority. They raise the notion of “Native Indonesian Muslim People Majority ” better known as Pribumi against “The unbeliever minority”, which — though denied — speaks of his Religious Christian and racially Chinese background. The clash against those two groups were never ceased since long before the independence, and just like how German Jews on world war 2 or the May ’98 incident, this group fan out that conflict and make him the black sheep for their own benefit and political power. In such politicized atmosphere, the definition of the people get more exclusive and smaller in size.
Maybe, some would say that to talk about what it means to take the mantle of “the people” would be a debate over semantics, wrangling over a fine print. But truly, the impact upon what would be considered as a valid term to be placated in that cause could not be more important enough, as policies would be steered upon said term. That is why a liberal use of it would reduce its meaning to a mere jargon, defeating its very purpose in the first place.
The controlling elites
“Thus, it is well to seem merciful, faithful, humane, religious, and upright, and also to be so; but the mind should remain so balanced that were it needful not to be so, you should be able and know how to change to the contrary.”
- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince.
In this age of information, the way this elites works would be so subtle due to the impact of information technological advancement. It is easy nowadays to check every statements that came out of the mouth of a politician and public figures, thus to be careful on that aspect would be more important than ever. Yet this is why meaningful debates and clear objective has slowly disappears, they resort to rhetoric as a mean of keeping them against being held accountable.
Having blunder would brand them in a bad way, thus losing the confidence of their supporters. Therefore, it’d be in the utmost importance for such a person to maintain their political stance despite all the pressure, all the logic aside. Which is why, sometimes what they said on their rally often sounds stupid, but as long as their supporters agreeing with such notion, nothing is off the limit. Suffice to say they have quite the expertise at manipulating the view and emotion of the masses, as charismatic as they were.
Word-crafting and agenda planning. As Machiavelli said, it’d be the key for having effective leadership upon societal group and people in general. A gimmick that could market a figure to be seen as upright and just, a balance that attract the attention of media and people.
The controlling elites know and aware that power in society is derived from the populace, its number gave significance towards the cause being pursued. Numbers and figures is a measurement that fits the capacity of media and common people, which is why it got so important to have bigger number to signify power. With great numbers, pressure group could launch a motion that would otherwise won’t be considered significant.
In 1998 reformation that marked the fall of Soeharto’s reign, popular cause of “youth against tyranny”, which undeniably opened the door for a new and fresh democratic atmosphere. Some are truly just, with the concern of how bad the government and its maladministration could brought down the entire nation to ruin. Yet, there are other political parties which rise from its ashes to champion the image of “defender of the poor” by handing out cash — like how money politic works — or representing the majority’s view as “anti-orba” (againt the Soeharto’s new order regime), and yet act the exact opposite of their campaign by promoting impunity, corruption, and nepotism.
There are many in both the government or opposition group that had done that, like this one certain politician that campaigned anti-nepotism movement while his children were all instated on governmental and political position. There are this party where they had the jargon that literally said “say no to corruption”, which turns out everyone inside that said party got tangled in a massive corruption scandal. Not to mention the famous “if I were to be proven guilty, throw me off the monas (Indonesia’s national monument)”. Also there are some politicians who campaigned inclusivity while using divisive motion such as “I am the native Indonesian” and similar clauses.
Yet many were caught unaware of the fact that they were being used by there ruling elite, posing as “the defender of the people”. They went all the way with their ignorance and the feeling of enervation, just like foam that went by as the wave pushes them just like what Prophet Muhammad PBUH said, as recorded on shahih hadith Abi Dawud 4297. Identity politics led them astray. They feel like they have somewhere to belong that grants them the sense of identity, and the elites gets the benefit of safety in number.
People’s power: to be used or to be served
Indonesia’s democratic system is a represented ones and its process uses the principle of popular votes. Meaning that every one of citizen’s voice carry equal weight in the government, no matter where they stay. This system differs from those who uses electoral college as the means to evade population bias.
Held by many political elites, Indonesia’s democracy deteriorates from what it had dreamt upon its constitution. As said by Thomas Power and Eve Warburton, Indonesia has fallen prey into accelerated process of elite-led democratic consolidation by the rise of of populist politicians that challenge the systemic governing and constitutional constraint by borrowing the “for the people” cause. In which it further enhance the deep polarization in between elements of society.
“Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.”
- Bertrand Russell
Indonesia, as a country with the biggest Moslem population in the entire world was not spared from movement that glorifies old Islamic populism as result of the rise of 20th century pan-Islamism. The elites that belong to such groups, as what Abdil Mughis Mudhoffir said has creating a certain way-in which by self-interested elites has been manipulating popular disinterest towards the current governmental regime for electoral purpose. Certain political gains is expected by those who hop in into this way of using people’s power.
Take the Anies Baswedan’s winning on Jakarta’s 2017 Gubernatorial rally that represents and a part of Indonesia’s populism in a form of mobilization on right wing Moslem’s group. With the emergence of series of Aksi Bela Islam (The action to defend Islam) with the narration of the mandate of ummah that is joined by various Islamists group. That narrative led to some demands that undermines the democratic process by pressuring many political actor to take act as a way to appease the “Religious Blasphemy” act — even as far as demanding Indonesia‘s constitution adhere to Islamic law, which of course failed. Islam here has been used to be an unifier of many Islamist group that brought upon a new populism in the context of Muslim society. Which in the end (arguably) led to voter’s political favors towards him.
Those populist cause won’t really take-off if it is without the help of media to further spread their existence too. If we open our eyes into the reality on how Indonesia’s national news rarely making the coverage of things that doesn’t sell well, Indonesia is led to a deliberate crisis of knowledge upon its diverse identity — which in turn diminish its sense of unity. This imbalance towards one (or even the only) means of society to learn about itself and its surrounding gave rise to the seed of intolerance.
Those groups that has the power to change the status quo still plays inside the system, nothing except using the people’s power rather than serving it. Rights are supposed to work in tandem with responsibilities which then creates a more sustainable civilization, alas it is yet to be seen. The ones sits in higher place should at least act by the principle of Noblesse Oblige, thus serving the people’s cause towards peace and their fulfillment. Truly power tends to corrupt, yet can’t we avoid the doom of our society where we belong before it is too late?
Bibliography
Anderson, Benedict.1983. Imagined Communities. London: Verso Publications.
Garner, Bryan A. 2009. Black’s Law Dictionary, ninth edition. Minnesota: West Publishing Co.
Kusuma, A.B. 2004. Lahirnya Undang-Undang Dasar 1945. Jakarta: FH UI.
Kusumo, Rangga, and Hurriyah. “Populisme Islam di Indonesia: Studi Kasus Aksi Bela Islam oleh GNPF-MUI Tahun 2016–2017”. Jurnal Politik, Vol.4, No. 1. acessed from https://doi.org/10.7454/jp.v4i1.172.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. 2017. Collected Works of Niccolo Machiavelli. Hastings: Delphi Publising Ltd.
Mahanani, Qisthi Faradina Ilma. 2020. “Pemikiran Ki Bagus Hadikusuma tentang islam dan negara dalam perumusan dasar negara Indonesia (1945–1953)”. Jurnal El Tarikh, Vol. 1, No. 2. accessed from https://doi.org/10.24042/jhcc.v1i2.6517.
Mudde, Cas and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser. 2017. Populism. New York: oxford University Press.
Power, Thomas, and Eve Warburton, ed. 2020. Democracy in Indonesia: From Stagnation to Regression. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
Russell, Bertrand. 2009. The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell. New York: Routledge.
Setijadi, Charlotte. 2017. “Ahok’s Downfall and the Rise of Islamist Populism in Indonesia”. ISEAS Perspective 38, June 8, accessed from https://www.iseas.edu.sg/images/pdf/ISEAS_Perspective_2017_38.pdf
