N

ot too long ago, Indonesia was besotted with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. As many were dazzled by him, the thought of iconoclasm never entered into the equation. Since the 2009 presidential race also resembled a celebrity contest heavy on infatuation, no substance was sought. Infatuation is not a political driver. It operates with the passions of like and dislike, not with a cultivation of the common good often demanding us to vote against our personal liking.

When Yudhoyono won the presidency in 2009 with a comfortable majority, both the dazzled crowds and the President started with infatuation, which in turn bred a balmy vision of the future. It was good for neither side, for it was popularity being confused with leadership. Infatuation is so desirous that an obstacle as small as an atom hurts it. That’s why when he began to govern but did not deliver, iconophilia turned into iconoclasm; thus he could hardly avoid paying the price of public disenchantment. Once popularity reached a certain pitch, it degenerated into a form of narcissism.

Yudhoyono is, of course, the legitimate president and we should wish him a complete term. But as the season of iconoclasm now starts in earnest, he seems increasingly agonized by the need to assert his dignified composure.

For those who are aware of the intricate logic of human passions, this weakness is but a flip side of his strength. His zealous concern for dignified appearance is a mirror image of his indecisiveness.

It is against this backdrop that we may understand his verbal sparks during a lecture at the Indonesian Youth Leader Forum 2011 on June 9. Yudhoyono said he was “not grooming anybody” for the 2014 presidential race, including his wife and sons. Well, legal restrictions are certainly there for all to see. But “not grooming anyone” is too malleable a statement to be persuasive.

In times of iconoclasm, the pursuit of veneration only begets further suspicion. Even if he was really sincere, he may be assumed to be faking it. Many of us remember vividly that the late Soeharto had a penchant for wanting something by appearing hesitant. There is nothing secret about this ploy both in business and politics: to deny an ambition is often not a sign of its absence but of its presence.

This may be too harsh for someone aspiring to be seen as a person of good will. Yet in the current political climate, it is hard not to conceive of politics as a theater of illusions. The way it works is simple: the actual motive behind real decisions is always different from the expressed reason by which the decisions are publicly defended. This is true not only of public policies but also of the ubiquity of political dynasties in Indonesia.

To problematize the rise of a political dynasty is of course important, but it easily also runs the risk of feeding political prattlers. It is amusing to consume the latest political gossip, and being amused is a solace in the current political quandary. Yet this will obscure further some grave issues that need to be addressed in the face of the growing tendency of political dynasties in Indonesia. One of them is the blurring between choosing as an expression of personal taste and voting as a political act for the common good.

Imagine that there are three candidates in a presidential race. A is athletic but indecisive, B looks caring but unintelligent, while C is known to be heedlessly pragmatic yet blessed with a flair for decisiveness. If political elections are simply an act of choosing one of them on the basis of personal liking (be it due to athleticism or caring appearance), then there is no distinction between democracy and a beauty contest. This is true not only at the national level but also in local elections.

Alas, the mushrooming presence of political consultancies has corrupted further this tendency. Instead of educating voters in the art of choosing for the common good, most of these political consultancies seduce voters to make choices based on personal preference. Even worse, since being in touch with grassroots voters is too costly, what is done is little more than vote buying and image creation. Here comes the importance of the mass media.

The end product is a sheer act of personal liking being touted as democracy. More fatal is the uprooting of both politics and democracy from the plight of the grassroots — hence the virtualization of politics that has been underway in the past 10 years and the complete disconnect between politics and common welfare. Most political parties have abandoned the grassroots (except on the eve of elections) and political consultancies have helped them complete this virtualization of politics.

Indeed, there is nothing more urgent for Indonesian democracy than a re-education of the voters: that voting is a political act for the common good, i.e., what is good for Indonesia may require one to vote against personal liking. This of course is a tall order, but it is the only safe route to veto any pretenders who secretly erect or perpetuate political dynasties.

The writer is a lecturer for the postgraduate program at the Driyarkara School of Philosophy in Jakarta.