Democracy Does Not Fear Criticism
Students from various universities have been holding large-scale demonstrations over the past few days and are likely to continue doing so in the coming days. This phenomenon need not be a cause for concern, particularly for the government. Student demonstrations are a form of public expression that is commonplace in a democratic country such as Indonesia. Even when such expression takes the form of criticism, it must be responsible and well-intentioned.
Student demonstrations are unavoidable, as demonstrations are a common phenomenon in any country that adheres to democratic principles, including Indonesia. The government should therefore be able to accept such criticism and evaluate the policies it has made, particularly if those policies do not favour or even harm the public. Democracy was not built to create a society that always agrees with government policy. On the contrary, democracy provides space for the emergence of differing opinions.
In a democratic system, the government derives its legitimacy through a mandate from the people. That mandate is a trust to be fulfilled by the government for the sake of justice and public welfare. In a democratic system, the relationship between the ruling government and the people it governs is like a pair of shoes. The author deliberately presents this shoe philosophy so that we can all understand the democratic system in simple terms.
If the bond between a pair of shoes is severed, the pair of shoes becomes meaningless and useless. Likewise in a democracy, if one of these two elements is not bound to the other, or if they drift apart, the result is the same as with the pair of shoes: useless and even a source of prolonged problems. This means that society needs the government to run the affairs of the state, and the government should listen to the input and opinions expressed by the public for the common good.
History has shown that many great changes are born from the courage of the public to voice criticism. The progress of a nation is determined not only by the quality of its leaders, but also by a public that cares and is brave enough to criticise policies that do not favour the people, so that power remains on the path of the constitution and the interests of the people.
In the Indonesian context, the student and youth movement that dared to speak truth to power began with the mass demonstrations of 1998, which altered the authoritarian tendencies of the New Order and ultimately led to the fall of President Soeharto. To this day, the student and youth movement remains a bargaining position vis-à-vis the government in power. This means that criticism finds its meaning as an instrument of social control as well as a reminder that every policy must favour the public interest.
Nevertheless, criticism does not mean freedom without limits. Democracy grants the right to express opinions, but it also carries a moral responsibility in exercising that right. In the concept of deliberative democracy, the mechanism for conveying opinions or criticism to the government must be grounded in rational argumentation, be based on data, and comply with the applicable legal framework to ensure that social control functions effectively without damaging public order.
This, in the author’s view, is the beauty of the state order guaranteed by democracy itself. The government may well believe that the policies it has made are for the common good, yet there is room for different perspectives from the public to assess those policies. The public is given a different space and is justified in criticising policy as long as the criticism is based on data, facts and rational argumentation. If these conditions cannot be met, then the criticism delivered will be empty and meaningless: an empty vessel makes the most noise.
In the era of social media, this challenge has become increasingly apparent. Information can spread quickly and in great volume, often outpacing the facts themselves. Hoaxes proliferate on social media, even within seconds, while the verification process often lags behind. As a result, opinion develops faster than fact. Moreover, it is difficult to distinguish between true and false information. No small amount of criticism ultimately turns into personal attacks, even targeting individuals rather than the substance of the criticism against policy.
The distinction between criticism and insult is therefore crucial to understand. Insults are often intended to demean or wound, whereas criticism is born to improve a situation. Criticism offers argumentation and dialogue, while insults often rely on emotion and foreclose the possibility of reaching a solution. For this reason, the quality of a democracy is determined not only by how freely the public can voice criticism and speak, but also by how maturely the public uses that freedom.
On the other hand, the government bears an equally significant responsibility. The government is also wrong to view public criticism as a threat, a disturbance to stability, or as something negative by making unfounded assumptions about the public. On many occasions, criticism actually serves as an early warning for the government to improve. Public aspirations, including those conveyed through demonstrations, can be a valuable source of evaluation if received with an open mind.
Students occupy a privileged position in this regard. History records that student movements have always served as a moral alarm for those in power. When political spaces such as the House of Representatives no longer function effectively as a check and balance on the government, the voices of students crying out for truth and justice become increasingly important.