Equality: a Prerequisite for Building Indonesia Political Condition

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.

Equality

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.

Communication

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.

Advertisements

When Indonesian People be a Blunder of God

After many religious intolerance incidents were happened nowadays, I was then remembered when Nietzche said, “Which is it? Is man only a blunder of God? Or is God only a blunder of man?”

Both of these choices are actually accurate to depict about Indonesia’s condition nowadays and since Indonesia stands as a country which acknowledges the existence of The Supreme God, it is clear to assert that the former gives a birth to the later.

Firstly, looking at the first question, instead of asking why we are made by God, I prefer to ask what action that should be done in order to not make human merely a blunder of God? This question is absolutely important, especially for them who always exalts God and making Thee as a banner for doing such actions

Cruel deed, violence, blatant action unto minority; all of this unfortunately are done in the name of religion, in the name of God, in order to establish a particular truth about a transcendent value. This is the reality which all Indonesians have to show almost every time. And in this condition, I can surely say that those who engage in such actions in Indonesia have been a blunder of God and thus I will say “yes” unto Nietzche’s first choice question.

Taking this problem unto a reflective area, I will ask: is it true that God has ordered Thou fellow to use violence upon other? If everybody is made equally according to God’s image, why then there are several people whom are repressed as if it is legal just because they are accused as blasphemous and do not tend to follow a mainstream religion?

It seems awkward for me if then religion teaches about violence. But, I don’t have any doubt that actually many of religions’ scripture involve some text that notes down about violence upon other and this text which are often used as a basis to do violence upon other. Furthermore, aside from harsh scripture, another reason that is often used when violating others is about morality. Just because one person is accused for degrading moral in their own concept, they can be very easily to do harsh action upon other.

First, in dealing with harsh scripture, open-minded behavior is obviously needed by every one in order to know about what scripture really says since the content of any kind of Holy Scripture also involves a historical data and circumstances where it was written. Understanding it literally, word by word, can potentially give a birth upon clashes. Hence, what is really needed is a holistic understanding.

Circumstances always changes and religion has to do the same. This condition is undeniable because if religion still defended its rigidness, it could be easily thrown out by its adherents. Hence, dealing with harsh scripture has to be done in nowadays atmosphere and social condition.

Perhaps it is true that long years ago violence was still considered as a better way for surviving. But, this assertion cannot be applied further for this time, especially in Indonesia where religious diversity clearly exists. Violence and repression cannot be considered again as a way to gain a peaceful living. Even if it can achieve peaceful living successfully, it is not a long-time period of peace that has been built since horrible feeling about violence and repression always remain in every heart of people and thus making them ready to make retaliation.

Second, in dealing with morality, it is imperative to not be trapped unto the narrow concept of morality. Degrading moral is not merely about sexual sphere but it is also about how to maximizing the well-being of people as had been noted by Sam Harris in his book, The Moral Landscape.

Thus, is it true that doing violence upon other can really contribute to maximize the well-being of society? In my opinion, this action contributes nothing for inclining the morality of Indonesians. On the other hand, I do believe that tolerance action can increase the well-being of society in Indonesia since diversity exists here and within this framework Indonesians can live peacefully without have to engage in any kind of clashes.

After explaining that the first choice question exists, it is a time to explain how the second choice question can be an effect of the former. If then there are many religious intolerance in Indonesia, an innocent people can be easily ask: is God really legitimate such cruel action? An atheist, skeptic, also can rise an assertion which says that actually we do need any God to be exist since what is actually happened with Thou existence is only a division which further just make a violence.

All of these assertions are undeniable since reality provides all Indonesians with the brutal fact: violence in the name of God with their own religion and thus rising up a thesis that actually God stands as if a blunder which has to take responsibility upon such actions. This condition actually gives a “yes” answer to the second question.

It is then clear enough why I call them as a real blunder of God because with their cruel action, they have harmed God’s name –which is always exalted by them- successfully. They always very busy with applying transcendent value as if they precisely know what God really wants but they neglect to treat others well.

It is clear that in order to stop this chain is to stop the cause. The cause then is clear enough: it is about deal with them who has been a blunder of God. If it can be successfully stopped, this chain can also be stopped. But, how can Indonesians stop the first cause? By disbanding a blasphemous sect or disbanding a mass organization which provoking a cruel action?

As had been noted by Kierkegaard, a philosopher, our life is full with choices, thus we will get our existence with doing a choice action in an atmosphere of sea of choices. Hence, it is all about how far Indonesia government, which acts as a sovereign, can rationally choose an action that should be done in order to prevent further chaotic condition. And a rational choice can only be achieved if Indonesia government itself does not longer its blindness and close its ears unto intolerance realities.

Treat everyone equally. This is a main principle which I offer and believe can deliver people to not be a blunder of God. People have their own legal right to worship their God without have to suffer repression. One thing that has to be always remembered: worshipping God is nothing if people cannot treat their akin equally without have to harming them. Is it useful to always go to mosque, church or any other worship place but in reality we still do violence upon other? How much successful are we to be a projection of God if our action cannot be a mirror of Thou blessing? People are not valued from how often they go to worship place, instead they are valued from how they treat other.

Hopefully, for the future, there will be no “yes” answer unto Nietzche’s question since Indonesia is a religious country. How Indonesia can be truly considered as a religious country if reality indeed shows the different? Indonesia has to prove it immediately.

Do Not Make Communication Tools be a Gap for Building True Relationship

In modern era nowadays, when people are more deeply attracted with their own business, communication tools which can give a satisfying service are highly exalted. Smart-phone, laptop, and other communication mediums thus become a new way of life-style and seem to be a must-have good as people have to live in their dynamic circumstance enveloped by metropolitan style.

Unfortunately, this modern life-style is often placed and used in its improper time. I often saw a group of people or family were gathering together either in a café or a restaurant. But, one thing that I saw was not a warm circumstance that actually could be built in there.

Instead, they preferred to get attract with their blackberry or their smart-phone. Each of them then just got busy with their own business. They might feel warm and close with their chat-friend when on the other hand anybody who sat surrounding them was posited as if they were strangers. Is there then any fault with communication tools?

Understanding

It is often forgotten that actually communication mediums are only a complement side of human whole life. These mediums do not constitute fundamental aspects of human-being to build their relationship. Positioning the medium as if they are the ultimate aspect can bring people unto an individualized world, when they become unaware with their surrounding circumstances.

One of many fundamental aspects of human-being that has important relation regarding this condition is the capability of human to understand. People are not merely a being who can only do sensory-action: seeing, listening, tasting, hearing, and smelling. Furthermore, human-being is also endowed an aspect of intellectual thinking in their very deep that can bring those sensory-actions to grasp a whole understanding unto others.

This condition can only be achieved with one prerequisite: there is a direct-communication that happens between each of human-being. Furthermore, this direct-communication cannot be reduced unto a model of communication which is built throughout chatting or any other mediums since there will be many aspect of sensory-action those are lacked. Hence, it is important to know what is actually meant by understanding by an intellective thinking that can bring any transcended value.

Understanding throughout intellective thinking absolutely has different side with merely understanding. As Louis Leahy noted down in his treatise, Human Being, understanding in this sense brings a new side in approaching an object: it is more profound, individual, and universal than the usual.

It can be profounder because it does not only grasp the shape of its object or the outer reality of the object. On the other hand, they grasp the deepest side of object, searching the truly principle that constructs the object, and then trying to search its meaning and relation for them in their daily life.

Furthermore, in this trying to get profounder side of object, understanding also tries to become universal, means to conceive wholly about the object. Understanding thus does never half-conceiving manner exists.

Aside from its profound and universal side of understanding, intellective thinking also brings individual side to approach. This individual side can also be said as approaching personal side of human and it can be very useful in building inter-human relationship.

Emmanuel Levinas, a philosopher, once said that actually each of people is absolutely different from other, thus each of them cannot be placed as robots that have same characteristics if they had been set from their factory. Human is different in their nature and this difference can be realized in an inter-subjective face-to-face gathering. In this gathering, human realized others’ difference than them and thus automatically has the same position as them as a subject, not object.

This is an imperative side which should be built in personal side of understanding, means to know the uniqueness side of other person. Since people can know well the different between himself and other, they can value other as they do unto their self. This side of personal side also contributes to make a profound understanding toward other since people will know other originality and their truly self.

Thus, a question does rise: how can people build this kind of intellective-thinking understanding model?

Sensory side takes the first step and thus it is important to have a direct encounter with other people. In a direct communication, many modes of languages will be out from every people. Gesture, face-feature, eye-gazing, and other modes will be happened there. This kind of language inevitably opens further unto a next step of deeper understanding since throughout this manner people just not speak but also seems try to make it real what has been spoken unto their partner in order to make their partner can get wholly what they are talking about.

Furthermore, after from gesture and body features in making language in direct communication, another important side for building whole understanding from this kind of communication is a sense of touch and face-to-face encountering which are absolutely different from modern communication model which only provide people with sound, text, or video.

A sense of touch cannot be replaced with anything since when this sensory takes place, every situation can be radically changed. Someone who is feeling sad can be easily fixed up when their friends are gathering to hug and thus giving a comfort side that cannot be given throughout chatting or any kind of messenger. This also prevails for someone who is feeling happy since this feeling can be easily shared with his friends and thus celebrated it together. Touching and facing directly how people’s colleagues also share what others’ feelings absolutely brings comfort and happiness and this clearly cannot be reduced by any kind of communication tools.

This is what I meant with understanding in an intellective sense. People in this atmosphere can give their sympathy and empathy unto others. They absolutely know how to act unto other, to grasp a meaning from others’ story, and also they can know well others’ originality in order to make a good relationship since they can know it throughout their sensory action and processing it with their intellective side. This kind of understanding absolutely cannot be provided with any kind of communication tools. I cannot imagine how people in the future if their lost their direct contact with others and get busy with their own messenger and smart-phone and so on even when their partners are telling about their problem in front of them.

Only in direct-communication people can build their whole understanding unto others. Thus, let place any communication tools in their proper position and let build a true relationship throughout whole understanding with surrounding circumstances. Do not let these tools make a gap between those who really stands near us.