What was at stake is not that the race was a rematch of the 2014 contest, or that the result was challenged at the Constitutional Court. Rather, it is that the ghostly allure of the malignant past remains alive, and its potential comeback wearing the ugly face of violence is not unlike what we witnessed in 1998. If the investigation by Tempo weekly is to be a guide (June 16), the same dark forces remain lethally operational. They are the forces that find a flawed democracy easier to live with than a healthy one. The threat may have been thwarted, but serious doubt lingers as to how the case will be resolved.

Even after the verdict has been sealed, the dust is unlikely to settle soon. Nothing recedes without leaving traces produced by the collision. At least three are worth noting.

First, the task of renewing the body politic as a scheme of cooperation. Since the reformasi (Reform Era) in 1998, it is agreed that who governs the body politic is to be decided upon through an open and democratic contest. A democratic contest is a solution to the problem of legitimacy arising from the conflicts of interest in electing a constitutional government. At the heart of this contest is a paradox as to how the diversity or even conflict of choices does not cancel life together as a scheme of cooperation. It is like solving competing interests in the body politic by a contest of sportsmanship.

When the contest is over, both winners and losers return to the scheme of cooperation for which the rule of democracy is established in the first place; some act as government, others as opposition. This of course is a tall order. There is no fiat in the rules of the democratic game, in the sense that all contestants are guided by political sportsmanship. This is just another way of saying about the personality requirements of any contestants who would join the race, in that political power is pursued without sacrificing the workability of the scheme of cooperation. This is the litmus test for any contestant. Short of it, electoral pursuit has nothing to do with democracy.

What happened with all the fracas before and after the 2019 elections is precisely the indulgent act of abandoning the primacy of the body politic as a scheme of cooperation.

The way voters’ sentiments have been preyed on is such that it is ripped apart along the cleavages of sentiments that make the renewal of the scheme of cooperation increasingly difficult.

Second, the toxic language of religious tribalism in politics. The origins of this language have less to do with religious revival than with the harnessing of religious sentiments for electoral mobilization. Since electoral democracy is predicated upon voters’ preferences, while preferences are shaped through group sentiments, the task of political entrepreneurs is to tap the ripest sentiments for electoral mobilization. It is here that political entrepreneurs meet their religious counterparts in creating the toxic language of religious tribalism. The most conspicuous example is the 2017 gubernatorial election in Jakarta, where the race rotted into a war of religious sentiments.

The toxicity of this religious tribalism is so damaging, precisely because it strikes at the heart of religio-cultural diversity, that constitutes Indonesian society in the first place. Once this religio-cultural constitution is shattered, what we have is a society injured by a climate of distrust that makes the rebuilding of the scheme of cooperation a Sisyphean task.

I notice even more venom infecting our societal psyche. Many inclusive and nonreligious issues — like corruption, environment, poverty — are increasingly construed in or filtered through religious sentiments. When an arrest is carried out by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), for instance, don’t be surprised if the question raised is the religion of the arrested and the one making the arrest.

In short, renewing the body politic as a scheme of cooperation has become more difficult due to the way religious identities have been pitted against each other for electoral mobilization.

Third, the eclipse of political decorum. Politics, of course, is a distinctive sphere of activities, often with its own brute imperatives. Its secret is to care about power. But to have no scruple in pursuing the ecstasy of power is no politics; it is sheer banditry. How low can you go? If politics is to be distinguished from banditry or tyranny, the borderline lies precisely in the pursuit of power without destroying the body politic as a scheme of cooperation for which democratic politics was conceived in the first place.

One way to judge true politicians is by seeing whether they appeal to our benign nature. If they prosper only by inciting hatred or violence, even the idea of them near high office is dreadful; this is sufficient reason to vote them out. For future elections, I cannot help wondering whether the service of psychiatry needs to be employed more optimally. For, nothing is more bizarre than entrusting the fate of the nation to desperadoes in thrall to their own delusions.

***

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

Popular

Is Indonesia really ready to embrace dual citizenship?

Tens of thousands seek better lives in Jakarta. But is the city losing its draw?

Elon Musk's Starlink granted licences to operate in Indonesia