Political Parties, Diversity, and the People's Needs

The 2029 General Election is still about three years away, but political parties have already begun preparing, including several new ones. What catches my attention is that both new and old parties always appear to care about diversity, which in our country is indeed a hard fact gripped tightly by the Garuda, our national emblem. Why ‘appear’? Because in reality, the issue of diversity still looks beautiful only in political speeches and party ornamental symbols, yet is always eroded by oligarchic interests, by a handful of elites who hold power and funds. It is fortunate if there is a coincidence where the party oligarchy consists of figures from various religions, ethnicities, and groups. That can be claimed as a fact of diversity. But is that enough? Certainly not. The diversity that the people need is not at all sufficient merely by displaying such symbolic diversity, especially if it is only a coincidence. What the people truly need is not diversity that stops at symbols or jargon, but diversity they genuinely feel in real life. Diversity that allows every person to practice their religion peacefully, obtain equal job opportunities, receive fair public services, and be treated equally before the law. True diversity is not primarily about the number of cultural celebrations or the liveliness of interfaith dialogues. All of that is important, but not enough. The most tangible measure of diversity is whether a person can be themselves without fear. When someone holds a belief, they are free to worship without intimidation, threats, or disturbance. They do not need to feel anxious because their beliefs differ from the majority in their neighbourhood. The state is present to protect their rights, while society respects their choices. It is there that diversity finds its meaning. The British philosopher John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty (1859), reminded us that a person’s freedom can only be limited when their actions harm others. This idea carries a profound message that difference is not a threat to communal life. What is a threat is when we force uniformity upon others. Unfortunately, in daily life, differences are still often used as a reason to limit citizens’ rights. Many people experience difficulty finding work not because they lack competence, but because of their identity. Some are rejected from entering an institution because of their religious background, ethnicity, or alma mater. Others face obstacles in obtaining public services simply because of differing views or political choices. All of this shows that discrimination remains a major homework for this nation. Yet, the constitution does not differentiate citizens based on religion, ethnicity, race, political choice, or social background. What the state recognises is equality of rights as citizens. Herein lies the difference between tolerance and justice. Tolerance means we allow others to be different. However, justice requires us to treat them equally. Political philosopher John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice (1971), asserted that a just society is one that provides equal opportunities to everyone without being influenced by the background they were born into. This principle is highly relevant for Indonesia, which is built upon diversity. Therefore, the measure of diversity does not stop at interfaith relations. Diversity must also be present in the economic system, education, bureaucracy, and law enforcement. What is the point of talking about unity if access to education is only enjoyed by certain groups? What is the meaning of tolerance if job opportunities are still influenced by identity? What is the meaning of the motto Bhinneka Tunggal Ika if public services differ between those in power and ordinary people? True diversity is only felt when justice is present in daily life. The most important thing is how the state treats its people. The people need not only the freedom to hold different opinions. They also need a guarantee that differing opinions will not lead to different treatment. Criticism of the government must not eliminate a person’s rights as a citizen. Support for the government must also not become a shortcut to obtaining various facilities. In a democratic country, loyalty to the constitution must be higher than loyalty to a political group. The French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America (1835-1840), warned that the greatest threat to democracy is not only the tyranny of the ruler, but also the tyranny of the majority. When the voice of the majority is used to suppress other groups, democracy loses its soul. Indonesia must not fall into such a situation. Differences in political choice are normal in a democracy. Differences in religion are a historical reality of this nation. Differences in culture are a wealth inherited from the nation’s founders. What must not happen is for these differences to give rise to discrimination in public services and law enforcement. We often hear the saying that the law must not be sharp downwards and blunt upwards. This expression arises because society still feels inequality in law enforcement practices. Ordinary people often face swift and harsh legal processes, while those with power or resources may receive different treatment. If this situation continues, it is not only the sense of justice that will be wounded, but also the sense of nationhood. Diversity will never survive without justice. We must realise that a civilisation cannot be built solely on economic progress, but also on the foundation of justice and equality.