Every time the government launches a public policy, the public\nresponse is almost always sharply divided. Recently, Indonesia\u2019s public\nsphere has become increasingly filled with fierce debates between groups\nthat support the government and those that criticise it. Unfortunately,\npolitical debates taking place on social media, online forums, and even\nin everyday conversations often no longer focus on the substance of the\npolicy itself, but rather on the political identities of each party. As\na result, support turns into defence without criticism, while criticism\nturns into rejection without scrutiny.<\/p>\n
This phenomenon is deeply regrettable because democracy fundamentally\nrequires citizens who are capable of critical thinking, not merely\nchoosing sides. When society is busier defending group identity than\nweighing the benefits and harms of a policy, the public sphere loses its\nprimary function as an arena for discussion for the common good. Society\nbecomes trapped in the shallow conclusion that absolute truth lies with\nits own group, and total error lies with the opposing side.<\/p>\n
In the Islamic tradition, difference of opinion (ikhtilaf) is not\nsomething foreign. Since the time of the Prophet\u2019s companions, differing\nviews on various social, legal, and political matters have existed.\nHowever, these differences did not necessarily lead to destructive\nhostility. Early scholars treated differences as a mercy and a space to\nenrich intellectual traditions. The problem today is not the existence\nof differences themselves, but when differences turn into division\n(tafarruq) and blind fanaticism (ashabiyah) that blinds the heart and\neliminates fairness towards others.<\/p>\n
In the context of Indonesian politics, symptoms of such division are\nincreasingly easy to find. Someone who supports a government policy is\noften negatively labelled a \u2018buzzer\u2019, while those who criticise the\ngovernment are frequently accused of being government haters,\nsubversives, or part of foreign interests. As a result, debate no longer\nfocuses on whether a policy is right or wrong, but on who is delivering\nthe message. Personal and group sentiments have deeply buried public\ncommon sense. Simplifying all government supporters as buzzers is\nclearly a flawed way of thinking.<\/p>\n
In a democratic system, supporting the government is legitimate and\neven necessary. A government that implements good policies deserves\nappreciation so that beneficial programmes can run sustainably. A\nhealthy democracy requires not only citizens who are capable of\ncriticising the government, but also citizens who are willing to provide\nrational support for policies that bring public benefit.<\/p>\n
The problem arises when support shifts into blind loyalty. The line\nbetween appreciation and excessive worship becomes blurred. When every\ncriticism is considered a threat to state stability, the democratic\nspace loses one of its most essential elements: public control over\npower. From an Islamic perspective, loyalty to any group or ruler must\nnot override the commitment to justice. The Quran emphasises in Surah\nAn-Nisa verse 135 that a Muslim is commanded to uphold justice, even if\nit contradicts their own interests or those of their family and\ngroup.<\/p>\n
This principle shows that supporting the government does not mean\nblindly justifying all its policies. Conversely, there are also those\nwho reject almost every government policy without any filter. While\ncritical thinking is a vital part of democratic oversight, and in the\nIslamic tradition, reminding the government not to deviate from the\nvalues of justice is part of enjoining good and forbidding evil, healthy\ncriticism should be built on a foundation of data, research, and\nadequate argumentation, not merely emotional outbursts on social\nmedia.<\/p>\n
The loss of objectivity in both supporting and criticising the\ngovernment does not occur in a vacuum. There are social cause-and-effect\nrelationships that trap society in political polarisation. At least\nthree main factors underlie this phenomenon.<\/p>\n
The first factor is political fanaticism or ashabiyah. When loyalty\nto a political group is placed above the truth, a person tends to lose\nthe critical capacity to assess a policy fairly. Support or criticism is\nno longer based on substance, but on ego. Islam has long warned of the\ndangers of this group fanaticism through a hadith narrated by Abu Dawud,\nwhere the Prophet Muhammad emphasised that ashabiyah is not part of\nIslamic teachings.<\/p>\n
As a solution to change this situation, society needs to develop an\nattitude of wasathiyah or moderation in politics. The concept of ummatan\nwasathan explained in Surah Al-Baqarah verse 143 teaches the importance\nof being proportional, just, and avoiding excess. This principle of\npolitical moderation requires every citizen to act as a fair arbiter,\ncapable of appreciating policies that bring benefit while also\ncriticising erroneous policies in a constructive manner.<\/p>\n
The second factor is the low level of political and digital literacy\nin society. The rapid flow of information in the digital age is not\nmatched by the public\u2019s ability to verify information and analyse\npolicies in depth. The principle of information verification has\nactually been taught in the Quran through the command of tabayyun in\nSurah Al-Hujurat verse 6. However, in the virtual world, the culture of\ntabayyun is often defeated by the impulsive urge to defend one\u2019s group\nor attack others.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/pros-and-cons-political-objectivity-from-an-islamic-perspective-1782651094", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }