Burying Feudalism Through a Listening and Considerate Attitude

That afternoon, while watching a video that later went viral, my thoughts immediately drifted back to the days when I participated in the MPR Four Pillars Quiz Competition during high school. There is a sense of pride in seeing young students demonstrate their understanding of nationalism, the constitution, and civic life through the 2026 MPR Four Pillars Quiz Competition. The video that has been widely discussed by the public comes from the provincial-level final of the 2026 MPR Four Pillars Quiz Competition in West Kalimantan, held in Pontianak. The event was attended by nine senior high schools from various regions in West Kalimantan. After the selection stages, three schools advanced to the final round: SMAN 1 Pontianak, SMAN 1 Sambas, and SMAN 1 Sanggau. The issue arose during the answer buzzer session when the panel of judges posed the question: “In selecting BPK members, the DPR must consider input from which institution?” Team C from SMAN 1 Pontianak was the first to answer. Confidently, a female student stated, “Members of the Financial Audit Board are selected by the House of Representatives, taking into account the consideration of the Regional Representative Council, and are inaugurated by the President.” Substantively, this answer directly refers to the constitutional provision, specifically Article 23F paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. However, instead of receiving additional points, the team was deducted five points by the judges. The same question was then posed again and answered by Team B from SMAN 1 Sambas. Interestingly, the answer provided was essentially no different from Team C’s. This time, the judges awarded full points on the grounds that “the essence of the answer is correct.” It is this contradictory decision that has angered the public. A representative from Team B questioned the basis of the scoring: why is an answer with the same substance considered wrong for one team but correct for another? On one hand, I must say I am proud of Team C for daring to speak up and respond with the facts at hand. Certainly, as the nation’s youth, this is what is called a brave attitude, embodying the spirit of nationalism. They have realised what democracy means, showing that they are not just competing in a quiz but truly reflecting on the four consensuses of nationhood and statehood. The paradox lies with the panel of judges. They, who should be fair assessors for all parties, armed with their expertise and competence, instead of providing a clear, argumentative, and accountable explanation, stubbornly stuck to their initial decision without room for evaluation. There was no opportunity for review, listening to the aspirations of the present audience, or openly, transparently, and fairly considering the participants’ objections. Such an attitude from the judges is not just a failure to act as judges in a quiz competition, but a failure to exemplify the meaning of the Four Consensuses of Nationhood and Statehood. In fact, the suppressive attitudes they displayed are feudalistic habits that should have long been buried. Public scrutiny intensified when one judge shifted the issue to the aspect of articulation in the answer. Yet, in various clips of the video circulating widely, the participant’s answer was clearly audible, and its substance was accurate. The Reality of Feudalism. Ultimately, from this, we can see that feudalism is still truly embedded in our lives. It has not completely disappeared and has even transformed into modern feudalism. The students have even witnessed the reality of feudalism from an early age. The statement by Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” is something they experienced when the judges, who should hold authority, failed to provide participatory space and consider their rights. At this point, the public sees something greater than just a technical scoring error. What was displayed is not merely about right or wrong, but the character of feudalism in decision-making: when authority feels no need to explain, refuses to consider, and positions decisions as absolute and unquestionable. Finally, we ask: when will we set the right example if from an early age the young generation is accustomed to witnessing and accepting feudal practices as normal? A mind shackled by feudal culture will never produce the courage to question, let alone innovation to address the challenges of the times. This nation does not need a generation that is skilled at memorising answers but afraid to correct mistakes. We need young people who dare to think critically, express opinions, and test decisions with sound reason. I recall the statement by Yanuar Nugroho: progress does not arise from compliance that stifles, but from the courage to improve. Nationalism and the spirit of defending the homeland cannot be taught merely on paper, in competition rooms, or through memorising the four pillars of nationalism. More than that, both must live in daily practice: giving space to honesty, valuing argumentation, and allowing intellectual ideas to grow without fear. Filling independence is not just about preserving national symbols, ceremonies, or rituals; there is something more important for the sustainability of our nation, which is ensuring that every child of the nation has the freedom to think, express opinions, and fight for the truth. For a great nation is not built by a submissive mentality, but by the courage to maintain sound reason. From the attitude of the panel of judges, who have not yet fully demonstrated the maturity and nobility of an assessor, we learn one important lesson: feudalism must be buried far away from public spaces.