Political Rivalry Should Not Be Destructive to the State and Government

Political rivalry must not sow the seeds of national instability and the functioning of government. Therefore, anyone engaging in such rivalry should not ride it with acts or actions of terror and intimidation against the principle of freedom of expression, which has become a collective agreement.

Lately, the rivalry among political actors appears unhealthy and dangerous because it is destructive to national stability and the running of government. The basis for stating that political rivalry has become very dangerous is the process of uncovering the acid attack case against a Kontras activist, and no less importantly, the reaction and official statement from President Prabowo Subianto in responding to that case.

Through official and open statements, two state institutions announced that the terror perpetrators have been identified as four rogue elements from a state institution that always acts and works based on orders from superiors. President Prabowo has also condemned the terror act and urged a thorough investigation.

Such a reaction and response from the President is a necessity. The President sees and certainly feels the presence of power groups that want to damage and undermine the reputation and credibility of his government.

Moreover, in the context of democracy and the agreement on the freedom to voice aspirations, the groups and forces behind those four rogue elements want to build sentiments of enmity by positioning the president and the public against each other.

If efforts to weaken the president’s position are carried out by several rogue elements within state institutions, is that not an act of political rivalry that is not only unhealthy but also very dangerous to national stability and the running of government? In truth, those who are in and work within state institutions are obliged to be obedient and loyal to the legitimate state and government.

The question then is, who ordered those four rogue elements? And who does the order giver work for that they dare to damage the reputation and credibility of the legitimate government?

In political rivalry, terror and intimidation by rogue elements of state institutions against citizens who exercise their right to voice aspirations are always understood as political intrigue aimed at tarnishing and toppling the reputation and credibility of the legitimate government.

In addition to becoming seeds of instability, terror and intimidation against freedom of expression or voicing criticism will damage the image of the nation-state. Like a frightening face, Indonesia will instill fear in anyone because it is not democratic.

The image of the government on the international stage is also tarnished. In such a context, it is certain that the government led by President Prabowo Subianto is greatly disadvantaged. Because when terror and intimidation occur against freedom of expression or those who voice criticism, suspicion and condemnation will be directed at the government, which is truly understood as the controller of all state instruments.

Moreover, there is another aspect that deserves vigilance. From the tarnished image of the nation-state and government, the erosion of the principle of freedom of expression will gradually develop into seeds and potential that ignite public resistance.

Public space will always be noisy because voices of criticism will continue to echo as a form of resistance against that terror and intimidation. Therefore, whoever becomes the intellectual actor of terror and intimidation against freedom of expression should no longer be given space. Allowing that tendency will only escalate the problems facing the nation-state.

It is a fact that lately public aspirations or streams of criticism are more voiced by young people, both millennials and Generation Z. It is not surprising because these two generations dominate Indonesia’s demographics in the last one or two decades.

According to data from the Central Statistics Agency (BPS) as of 2025 on Indonesia’s demographics, the total Generation Z reaches 74.93 million people and the total millennial generation is 69.38 million people, with an average age around 25 to 45 years. They grew up and were educated in the environment of democracy built by the 1998 Reform movement. Thus, they become a critical community because they are rational.

These two generations are accustomed to the dynamics of freedom of expression from home, school to university spaces. Because it has become a habit, they are not afraid to simply argue or debate, including in public spaces.

And, as can be witnessed on several social media platforms, these two generations continuously voice very loudly against terror and intimidation towards individuals or communities that voice criticism.

To prevent escalation of problems, the approach and response to the rational attitude and criticism voiced by these two generations must certainly be wise by prioritising dialogue. Repressive approaches by rogue elements, such as terror and intimidation, will never be effective.

In addition to igniting resistance, repressive approaches by rogue elements only make the atmosphere not conducive. The excess of damaged conduciveness in turn only adds to the burden of problems for the government.

All parties hope that political actors who are engaging in rivalry do not disrupt the government’s work and focus in facing the various real issues that are currently emerging. Handling the impacts of disasters in Sumatra still needs to be continued.

Repairs to infrastructure and residents’ settlements in several disaster-affected areas still need to be continued. In the aspect of the national economy, in addition to being marked by bubbles of unemployment figures, the government is also working to address the current year’s budget deficit.

Escalation of national economic problems becomes inevitable due to the turmoil of war in the Gulf region involving Iran on one side against Israel-United States (US) on the other side. One of the excesses of that war is the emergence of problems or challenges regarding the availability of oil energy in