2004 elections and the cupidity of politics
B. Herry-Priyono, Lecturer, Driyarkara School of Philosophy, Jakarta
Instead of becoming a civilizing project for our political life, the 2004 elections may end up turning our politics into a mask worn by celebrities.
An early sign pointing in that direction has shown itself in the revival of old figures becoming embodied in the candidacy of their once-staunch guards. It is encouraging to know that this problem has given rise to a relentless campaign against rotten politicians. For sure, no one has ever stayed the same person with his or her old character, but personality transformation in such a short time is an illusion. However, it is increasingly clear that, rather than learning how to grow up, our collective psyche instead seems to have acquired a compulsion for extremes. Having failed to resolve our problems in a serious manner, we are turning politics into a joke. Thus we have established political life as a stage for jokers.
Our formal political life has followed suit in the way our television channels have been turned into a stage for farce. As we know, a herd of pop and dangdut singers, film and soap actors/actresses, comedians and other screen entertainers have rushed forward as legislative candidates. Some step in at the request of the competing parties, others enter the arena of their own volition; some are little more than cheerleaders, whereas others on the list are destined to be elected.
Celebrity in political office is not rare. Joseph Estrada, the Filipino action-film star, was president of the Philippines. Fernando Poe Jr., another with an "action-man" image , if only in films, is now running for the presidency. What makes present-day Indonesia different is the scale of the phenomenon. No one seems to know the exact number of entertainment celebrities running for political office, but as the countdown to election day proceeds, more and more are joining the race in earnest.
Thus, when the campaign period starts, we can expect more and more entertainment on television channels, radio stations, campaign podiums, malls, streets and other forums. Indeed, it will be high time to witness a race for political office heavily employing the denizens of the entertainment world. However, be not surprised then if, instead of harnessing the world of entertainment celebrities for political purposes, it is our political life that will be turned more closely into a circus. Politics is being cannibalized by the entertainment industry. The consequences are dire.
First, as bluntly suggested by Arswendo Atmowiloto, a writer who is knowledgeable about the ins and outs of the celebrity world, the more politics is crowded out by entertainment celebrities, the more politics will become a world of facade. Arswendo's biting remark cuts too close to the bone: "Being accustomed to playing many stage roles, they will act the way they play their stage roles, that is, as if they were members of the legislature ... It is a merging of empirical reality with stage fantasy" (Kompas, Feb. 27, 2004). It may be entertaining, but it certainly lacks substance.
Second, it is a matter of common sense to see the entry of the entertainment herds into political life as something to do with the issue of vote gathering. Of course, there are always some exceptions to the rule. It is indeed an unhappy fact to witness that political office in this country has to appear as being linked to ordinary people only during election campaigns. Since it is hardly connected to their lives on a daily basis, it takes some extra effort to do so.
One possibility is to offer some down-to-earth programs that address the plight of ordinary people. Devoid of such programs, however, offering more entertainment is a convenient solution. No one is more adroit in this matter than screen celebrities.
It may not be as grand as the way Commodus, the brutal Roman emperor in the film Gladiator, anesthetized the simpletons by holding blood sports in the Coliseum, but the logic is not dissimilar. Instead of having a crowd masochistically screaming for blood, we will have something of the cats looking at the queen: Cute but brute.
Third, as expected, the more we wear the spectacles of cupidity, the more our political lives are far removed from reality. It is indeed becoming harder to believe that what they will say in the campaign will be based on any serious acquaintance with the nobility of politics. Perhaps they will produce a campaign that amazes, but certainly does not persuade. If the stage images demand our amazement, they will surely also pay the subsequent price of our disenchantment.
Indeed, if we expect the 2004 elections to solve this country's political problem, we seem to be destined for disappointment. Why have we arrived at this farcical condition? No doubt there are many explanations. But we can no longer do what we used to do, that is, blame everything on the imperfections of the government. For, as cautioned by Montaigne a long time ago, "all mortal things are full of imperfection".
It is indeed an unpleasant fact to witness that something as grandiosely important as a general election has little to offer by way of solutions to the problems of political governance. And it is gradually clear that this inertia has less to do with the lack of tireless and noble efforts undertaken by many organizations to perfect their institutional setup than with the general climate of banality.
The early sign of banality that may soon descend upon us are, perhaps, best forewarned by Arswendo when he referred to the explosive entry of entertainment celebrities into the election race: "Do you expect us to believe in their quality? Even to expect them not to come late for film shootings is like asking for the moon!"
So, here we are, preparing ourselves to be seduced by soap actresses and dangdut singers-turned-politicians. While we savor the delight, we may recall a phrase from Shakespeare's Twelfth Night: "If music be the food of love, play on; give me excess of it, that, surfeiting, the appetite may sicken, and so die".