Political Parties, Diversity, and the People's Needs

The Criminal Code accommodates the concept of social punishment.

The 2029 General Election is still approximately three years away, but political parties, including several new ones, have already begun their preparations. What catches my attention is that, both new and old, political parties always seem to care about diversity, which is a hard fact held firmly by the Garuda, our national emblem.

Why ‘seem to’? Because, in fact, the issue of diversity so far appears beautiful only in political speeches and party ornaments, but is constantly eroded by oligarchic interests—by a handful of elites who possess power and funds. We are fortunate if there is a coincidence where the party oligarchy consists of figures from diverse religions, ethnicities, and groups. Such a thing can be claimed as a fact of diversity.

But is that enough? Of course not. The diversity required by the people is not merely about displaying such symbolic diversity, especially if it is only a coincidence.

TRUE DIVERSITY

What the people truly need is not a diversity that stops at symbols or jargon, but a diversity that they can truly feel in real life. A diversity that allows every person to practice their religion peacefully, obtain equal opportunities for work, receive fair public services, and be treated equally before the law.

True diversity is not primarily about the number of cultural celebrations or the frequency of interfaith dialogues. All of that is important, but not sufficient. The most tangible measure of diversity is whether a person can be themselves without fear.

When someone believes in their religion, they should be free to worship without intimidation, threats, or disturbance. They should not feel anxious because their beliefs differ from the majority in their neighbourhood. The state must be present to protect their rights, while society respects their choice.

That is where diversity gains its meaning. The British philosopher John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty (1859), reminded us that an individual’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. The real threat arises when we impose uniformity upon others.

Unfortunately, in daily life, differences are still often used as a reason to limit the rights of citizens. Not a few people experience difficulties in obtaining employment not due to a lack of competence, but because of their identity. Some are rejected from entering an institution because of their religious, ethnic, or educational background. Others face obstacles in accessing public services simply because they hold different views or political affiliations.

All of this indicates that discrimination remains a major task for this nation. In reality, the constitution never differentiates citizens based on religion, ethnicity, race, political choice, or social background. What the state recognises is the equality of rights as citizens.

This is where the distinction between tolerance and justice lies. 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, regardless of the backgrounds they were born into. This principle is highly relevant to Indonesia, which was built upon diversity.

Therefore, the measure of diversity does not stop at interfaith relations. Diversity must also be present in the economic, educational, bureaucratic, and legal enforcement systems. What does it mean to speak of unity if access to education is only enjoyed by certain groups? What is the meaning of tolerance if employment opportunities are still influenced by identity? What is the significance of the motto Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity) if public services differ between those with power and ordinary citizens?

True diversity is only felt when justice is present in daily life. Most importantly, it is about how the state treats its people. The people do not only need the freedom to hold differing opinions; they also need the guarantee that differing opinions will not result in different treatment. Criticism of the government must not strip someone of their rights as a citizen. Conversely, support for the government must not serve as a shortcut to obtaining various privileges.

In a democracy, 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 rulers but also the tyranny of the majority. When the majority’s voice is used to suppress other groups, democracy loses its soul.

Indonesia must not fall into such a situation. Differences in political choice are natural in a democracy. Religious differences are a historical reality of this nation. Cultural differences are the wealth inherited from the nation’s founders. What must not happen is when these differences lead to discrimination in public services and law enforcement.

We often hear the expression that the law should not be sharp downwards and blunt upwards. This expression exists because society still feels inequality in the practice of law enforcement. The common people often face swift and harsh legal processes, while those with power or resources can obtain different treatment. If this situation continues, it is not only the sense of justice that will be wounded, but also the sense of nationality. Diversity can never survive without justice.

We must realise that a civilisation cannot be built solely through economic progress, but…