Pros and Cons: Political Objectivity from an Islamic Perspective

Every time the government launches a public policy, the public response is almost always sharply divided. Recently, Indonesia’s public sphere has become increasingly filled with fierce debates between groups that support the government and those that criticise it. Unfortunately, political debates taking place on social media, online forums, and even in everyday conversations often no longer focus on the substance of the policy itself, but rather on the political identities of each party. As a result, support turns into defence without criticism, while criticism turns into rejection without scrutiny.

This phenomenon is deeply regrettable because democracy fundamentally requires citizens who are capable of critical thinking, not merely choosing sides. When society is busier defending group identity than weighing the benefits and harms of a policy, the public sphere loses its primary function as an arena for discussion for the common good. Society becomes trapped in the shallow conclusion that absolute truth lies with its own group, and total error lies with the opposing side.

In the Islamic tradition, difference of opinion (ikhtilaf) is not something foreign. Since the time of the Prophet’s companions, differing views on various social, legal, and political matters have existed. However, these differences did not necessarily lead to destructive hostility. Early scholars treated differences as a mercy and a space to enrich intellectual traditions. The problem today is not the existence of differences themselves, but when differences turn into division (tafarruq) and blind fanaticism (ashabiyah) that blinds the heart and eliminates fairness towards others.

In the context of Indonesian politics, symptoms of such division are increasingly easy to find. Someone who supports a government policy is often negatively labelled a ‘buzzer’, while those who criticise the government are frequently accused of being government haters, subversives, or part of foreign interests. As a result, debate no longer focuses on whether a policy is right or wrong, but on who is delivering the message. Personal and group sentiments have deeply buried public common sense. Simplifying all government supporters as buzzers is clearly a flawed way of thinking.

In a democratic system, supporting the government is legitimate and even necessary. A government that implements good policies deserves appreciation so that beneficial programmes can run sustainably. A healthy democracy requires not only citizens who are capable of criticising the government, but also citizens who are willing to provide rational support for policies that bring public benefit.

The problem arises when support shifts into blind loyalty. The line between appreciation and excessive worship becomes blurred. When every criticism is considered a threat to state stability, the democratic space loses one of its most essential elements: public control over power. From an Islamic perspective, loyalty to any group or ruler must not override the commitment to justice. The Quran emphasises in Surah An-Nisa verse 135 that a Muslim is commanded to uphold justice, even if it contradicts their own interests or those of their family and group.

This principle shows that supporting the government does not mean blindly justifying all its policies. Conversely, there are also those who reject almost every government policy without any filter. While critical thinking is a vital part of democratic oversight, and in the Islamic tradition, reminding the government not to deviate from the values of justice is part of enjoining good and forbidding evil, healthy criticism should be built on a foundation of data, research, and adequate argumentation, not merely emotional outbursts on social media.

The loss of objectivity in both supporting and criticising the government does not occur in a vacuum. There are social cause-and-effect relationships that trap society in political polarisation. At least three main factors underlie this phenomenon.

The first factor is political fanaticism or ashabiyah. When loyalty to a political group is placed above the truth, a person tends to lose the critical capacity to assess a policy fairly. Support or criticism is no longer based on substance, but on ego. Islam has long warned of the dangers of this group fanaticism through a hadith narrated by Abu Dawud, where the Prophet Muhammad emphasised that ashabiyah is not part of Islamic teachings.

As a solution to change this situation, society needs to develop an attitude of wasathiyah or moderation in politics. The concept of ummatan wasathan explained in Surah Al-Baqarah verse 143 teaches the importance of being proportional, just, and avoiding excess. This principle of political moderation requires every citizen to act as a fair arbiter, capable of appreciating policies that bring benefit while also criticising erroneous policies in a constructive manner.

The second factor is the low level of political and digital literacy in society. The rapid flow of information in the digital age is not matched by the public’s ability to verify information and analyse policies in depth. The principle of information verification has actually been taught in the Quran through the command of tabayyun in Surah Al-Hujurat verse 6. However, in the virtual world, the culture of tabayyun is often defeated by the impulsive urge to defend one’s group or attack others.