Which appropriate side should be used as a basis for buildingIndonesiapolitic atmosphere? Many answers are offered to satisfy this question but only one exists which can properly satisfy this question: equality.
Unfortunately, nowadays condition gives another side of politic. Money and religion are often be used as a basis for establishing an appropriate political condition inIndonesia. Sovereignty can be easily bought by some amounts of money and it can be clearly seen in many cases of taxation mafia. Public policy can be legally brought out even it does not accommodate all of people’s background as policy for banning Ahmadiyah immediately which had been shouted neither by hard-liners organizations nor government itself with the statement of religious-affair ministry few months ago. Politic in this sense then has been successfully underestimated. Politic is just trapped between both money and religion.
Jacques Ranciere once said that actually people have their same capability of thinking; thus each of them also has a same opportunity to be a political leader. Furthermore, he also noted down that actually equality is not a beyond ultimate goal of politic; instead it has actually exists in society since each people can think freely. Thus, politic should be started from equality in every sense.
How canIndonesiaadopt this theory? InIndonesia, as had been noted above, politic does not have its equality in another sense: religion and money. Those who are very rich and grasp majority religion can be easily lifted up to be a political leader or to publish publicly their own interest without have to face impediments as minority suffers.
This condition absolutely brings inequality inIndonesiapolitical atmosphere and making a gap between two divisions of people that can be never bridged easily.Indonesiagovernment may claim about the cleanness of their government and also about equality between majority and minority; on the other hand realities show the different.
For proving this hypothesis, let this question be answered appropriate unto within nowadays conditions. After many in-toleration incidents were happened, haveIndonesiagovernment taken a firm step for disbanding any anarchistic organizations? It has been three times until now thatIndonesiapresident shouted his will to disband such organizations. Still about intolerant action, how successIndonesiagovernment protect minority in doing their worship, especially in Ahmadiyah case whereas they are often be an object for repression for any hard-liner. How do these realities talk to Indonesians?
Secondly, in dealing with corruption case, is there any further progress for clearing this huge problem? Even reality has to show Indonesians that people who did not know anything for outing such money in Century case had to face her jail. And how about Gayus case which cannot be clearly solved until now but on the other hand Ariel case seemed very easy to be cleared up.
Equality thus never plays its important role inIndonesiapolitic; if it wont to be hyperbolic for saying that actually equality is never be placed deliberately to play its important role. Minority inIndonesiahas to face many impediments for shout their interest when on the other hand money and mainstream religion can do more even better. And the result has also been concluded: building politics throughout money and religions does not give any significant contribution for a betterIndonesia.
In order to stop this awkward condition, it is clear what should be done. Firstly,Indonesiahas to start its political atmosphere with equality, that politic cannot be placed in a narrow sphere; religion and money. And also in this sense, it is hoped thatIndonesiagovernment can know exactly what is needed by their people.
Secondly, it is imperative forIndonesiato erase the gap between majority and minority, between rich and poor, and also between mainstream religion and other religions. In dealing with this occasion,Indonesiacan adopt Hannah Arendt’s perception, a Jews woman philosopher and also throughout Jurgen Habermas’ model of deliberative democracy.
Hannah Arendt once said that actually politic is not built throughout a birth of many political institutions such as representative body or president. Furthermore, politic is about communication that happens between each of people. Politic means nothing if communication that is happened has been stopped. Jurgen Habermas’ view of deliberative democracy also emphasizes the urgent need of communication in democracy to make a rational consensus. Hence, both of this thinking has the same basis: communication in an equal atmosphere for building a good political condition.
It is clear then what should be done to fix upIndonesiapolitical condition: it is to build an egalitarian society and reject any kind of politic that always uses money and religion as a prerequisite. And building this equality also means to build a rational communication that is free from domination or any kind of repression between every people and Indonesia government should have not reject a consensus that can be successfully achieved or letting its deafness for people’s interest. It should be used as a source of consideration for making public policy.
Emmanuel Levinas once said that every people has their own unique sense then make them can never be the same as other. This difference actually makes them equal since they are actually unique in their own way. In politic, Emmanuel Levinas also said that appropriate condition in dealing with neither people who we had known well nor other who had been stranger for us should be built in order to prevent any inequality exists. HaveIndonesiagovernment nowadays done it well? If equality can never be built successfully,Indonesiaonly has a big dream for making a good political atmosphere.