Fasting and the Ethos of Constitutionalism

This year’s Ramadan returns once again bearing a suffocating paradox. Whilst believers are devoted to subduing their desires, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) conducted a sting operation (OTT) against several state officials whilst society was engaged in fasting and other Ramadan observances.

The cases ensnaring the Regent of Rejang Lebong (10 March 2026) and the Regent of Pekalongan (3 March 2026) serve as a harsh reminder that the lust for power often does not recognise the time for restraint. Their actions constitute concrete evidence that power, which ought to be safeguarded with full responsibility, is instead misused for personal interest. Whilst believers are fasting, certain officials who ought to exercise self-restraint instead “break fast” with state money and various other personal advantages.

The sting operations against the two Regents add to a lengthy list of KPK sting cases to date. Within three months of 2026, the KPK has netted eight state officials suspected of being entangled in corruption cases, including Regent Pati Sudewo (19 January 2026). These arrests are certainly not mere statistics of criminality. They are evidence of the existential failure of those holding authority in transforming the meaning of “restraint” from the dining table to the table of power. Whilst the common people fast amidst economic hardship, some elites instead abuse power to reap personal gain. Why does such massive religious ritualism fail to tame the recklessness of power?

This inability to exercise restraint confirms what St Augustine termed libido dominandi—a primitive lust to dominate that blinds conscience and transcends boundaries of public ethics. In this logic, there exists a strong relationship between deep psychological desire and ambition for power, wherein social and political control is engineered to satisfy the hunger for authority.

Fasting and the Ethos of Governance

Essentially, fasting (shaum) is a school of “limits”. It is not merely a ritual of shifting mealtimes, but rather a radical exercise in saying “no” to things desired. Fasting teaches us to exercise restraint—to restrain our desire for worldly pleasures, such as eating, drinking, and sexual relations. This is important learning about limitation in life, about what is permissible and what is not.

Fasting, understood as an effort to limit and restrain, holds relevance in discourse on the philosophy of statehood. In constitutional theory, this idea of limitation converges on the concept of constitutionalism. Charles Howard McIlwain, in Constitutionalism: Ancient and Modern (1947), affirms that the essence of a constitution is legal limitation on government action (limited government). This is further reinforced by Albert Venn Dicey in his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885), with the doctrine of Rule of Law, which emphasises the supremacy of law above the personal will of rulers and opposes arbitrary power or the abuse of authority.

There exists a philosophical parallel in the relationship between fasting and constitutionalism. If fasting is a fence for individual desires, then constitutionalism is a fence for the desires of state power. A constitutional state is one wherein those in power are subject to law as the boundary marker of authority. State power must be limited by law and constitutional institutions, and those administering it must exercise restraint from actions exceeding the authority granted to them.

In this context, state officials must emulate the essence of fasting. Not merely restraining themselves from eating and drinking, but also restraining themselves from abuse of power. It is unlawful for state officials to violate the authority attributed to them. The practice of exceeding authority (excess de pouvoir) is in essence a form of destruction of the limitations on the mandate of popular sovereignty formulated through the five-yearly democratic cycle of general elections.

During the month of Ramadan, Muslims are reminded to exercise restraint and control their desires. This should also be a moral reflection for public officials. When an official exceeds the authority granted to him, he in fact nullifies the fast on power that ought to be maintained for the sake of the sustainability of a just and integral state. Great state authority must be exercised with full responsibility, within the bounds of existing law, so as not to fall into corruption and abuse of power.

Towards Constitutional Piety

Reflection on fasting requires us to transcend mere ritual piety. We require “constitutional piety”—a commitment to remain faithful to the boundaries of authority even when opportunities to violate them are wide open. This concept aligns well with James Madison’s statement in The Federalist Papers (1788), which argues that because men are not angels, power must be fenced by mutually balancing ambition. Madison affirms that to safeguard liberty and justice, power must be arranged by a system that prevents abuse.

A successful leader is one capable of emulating the essence of fasting in every policy decision. He continually asks whether his actions conform to the corridors of law or merely satisfy political lust. The constitution must not become merely dead paper that is trampled by an insatiable hunger for power.

Fasting should be a moment for us to maintain awareness of the limits in both personal life and in the context of governance. For state officials, fasting must be understood as the ethos of constitutionalism—exercising restraint from abuse of power and remaining within the boundaries of authority granted. If state officials can emulate the true meaning of fasting, then they will become leaders who are wise, just, and integral. Conversely, if they exceed the limits of authority—