Leaders' Quarrels and the Erosion of Exemplary Conduct

The incident in Lebak Regency, Banten, on 30 March 2026, cannot be dismissed as a mere ripple in local political dynamics. The altercation between Lebak Regent Hasbi Asyidiki Jayabaya and Deputy Regent Amir Hamzah in the halalbihalal room reveals something more fundamental: the fracture of leadership ethics in the public eye. A space that should nurture fellowship and strengthen unity has turned into an open stage for personal conflicts. At this point, power loses its authority, no longer serving as a shelter but as a source of discord. The public’s reaction shows that the event extends beyond momentary sensationalism. Those who placed hopes in the 2024 regional elections now feel an ever-widening gap between promises and reality. Thus, expectations of change slowly erode, replaced by shame at leaders who should be role models but instead display bickering. The incident also uncovers a deeper issue: the inability to distinguish between private space and public responsibility. Yet power demands maturity, not merely authority. Naturally, the impact extends beyond interpersonal relations in the power circle to the legitimacy they hold. Public trust, built with great effort, can collapse from a single uncontrolled public display. Thus, what occurred in Lebak Regency does not stand alone as an isolated event. In recent times, the Indonesian public has repeatedly witnessed open disputes among elites—broadcast via social media or television—both at the centre of power and in the regions, even spilling across sectors. As shown in television news, there have been debates in parliament that exceeded reasonable bounds, tensions between ministry officials, and frictions within state institutions. All this indicates that healthy dialogue spaces are gradually being pushed aside by short-term interests and increasingly prominent power egos. This condition signals a problem of maturity in political practice. After all, conflict is inherently part of unavoidable dynamics, but it demands wise management. What appears instead is the opposite: conflicts are flaunted in public spaces, wrapped in personal interests, and sharpened with political narratives. As a result, public space loses its function as a place for clear exchange of ideas, shifting to a stage for often shallow image contests. The development of information technology accelerates and amplifies the impact of this phenomenon. Social media acts like an echo that never truly fades—every conflict is multiplied, clipped, and disseminated without full context. In such situations, the public does not merely watch but gets swept into collective emotional currents. The subsequent impacts of this condition cannot be taken lightly. When elite conflicts continue to dominate attention, the direction of development becomes blurred. Important agendas concerning public welfare—from poverty alleviation to infrastructure improvements—are sidelined by unproductive clamour.