The Hyperreality of the President's Politics
The critical dialogue (more precisely, a critical debate) conducted by the president with journalists and political-economy experts on 22 March last week provided numerous lessons for Indonesia’s political journey.
Present at the debate were political-economy expert Rizal Mallarangeng, economist M. Chatib Basri, and journalist Najwa Shihab; the event unfolded intensely, broadcast live by a private television station and YouTube.
During the debate, the president disagreed with comments made by M. Chatib Basri and Najwa Shihab regarding the fragile economic condition. Meanwhile, Najwa Shihab launched criticism that the state was not responsive enough to citizens suffering during the flood disaster.
The state then appeared with all its authority, through the president as its representation, stating that citizens who criticise state policies constitute an act of treason and an intent to overthrow Indonesia.
The president felt that what M. Chatib Basri and Najwa Shihab expressed was not based on field facts. This was considered mere assumption, even veering towards hatred perpetrated by citizens. Is that true? Of course, we can read it from a somewhat more critical alternative perspective: why is the state so suspicious of its critical citizens? Is this state in danger and led undemocratically?
I attempt to read it within two broad frameworks: first, the state in a post-democracy condition, namely a state led towards the president’s self-imaging as all-encompassing, always right, and all-wise. Meanwhile, those who oppose are political enemies to be eradicated. Second, a state transitioning towards a totalitarian state, namely a state managed through the personification of the president. State policies are the president’s personal policies. If there is criticism of the state, it is regarded as criticism of the president’s person.
Post-Democracy
A state that adopts a democratic political system is not a state anti-criticism. Especially a state that assumes criticism from those who disagree with state policies constitutes rebellion. Criticism in a democratic state is an obligation, not just a right of citizens. Thus, criticism should become the responsibility of all citizens when observing that leaders and their assisting apparatus are on an improper path in managing the government.
The state does not appear through various symbols of power to have its existence acknowledged. The state does not even need to state that what it does is the mandate it is carrying out. A state that considers itself bearing a mandate is a state that lacks confidence in its citizens’ recognition. Its leader can thus be said to be a leader thirsty for recognition from its citizens.
That is what Paul Ricoeur calls a state of hyperreality. A state in the shadow of imagination about virtue, even though what is done actually does not lead to virtue for its citizens. But because the state has an imagination outside reality, what the state imagines seems to be the need of the citizens. This is the hyperreality of the state’s politics in the shadow of post-democracy.
By adopting the assumption that shadows and imagination constitute the reality of citizens’ lives, what is continuously built is a grand imaging of all its political activities. The state ignores what becomes the real needs of its citizens; what matters is that what the state desires is carried out, even if it burdens the state budget or even undermines the democratic political system aspired to by many citizens.
The state’s indifference to considering citizens’ criticism and input is the most authentic evidence that the state, through the president, is actually directing this nation’s political life from democracy towards post-democracy that is totalitarian. Without mercy, the state will crush those who do not agree with state policies in the fields of economy, politics, and culture. It is truly terrifying if this state is ultimately ruled by a totalitarian president who is anti-criticism. This state is like the Nazi era in Germany at that time.
Totalitarian Politics
Various acts of violence carried out by the state and its apparatus indicate that this state is transitioning towards totalitarian politics. As stated by Hannah Arendt (1994), totalitarian politics is a political construction where the state is always right. The state is always in authority.
The state is in a position to do anything to its citizens. If allowed to continue, the state will not only act authoritarian but become totalitarian. The state feels it necessary and must carry out systematic violence against its citizens who criticise and disagree with the policies it makes.
Such a state construction is truly terrifying for the progress and growth of the democracy we aspire to together. A state that has begun to free itself from the authoritarian regime for 32 years now falls back into the wave of totalitarian politics because it is systematically planned by state officials. Civil citizens, outside political elites, political brokers, and economic tycoons, are truly in the grip of increasingly evident violence at every step.
Citizens seem to have no more space for civic political participation. Citizens are constantly under political terror carried out by the state along with its apparatus, accompanied by guns, weapon muzzles, and hot lead bullet casings. If not using hot lead bullet casings, then using tear gas or caustic water splashed on anyone who opposes the political regime’s views.
That is the most real and terrifying picture.