When Thuggery Infiltrates the Chamber of Democracy

Democracy is not only built on the constitution and legislation. It is also supported by ethics, maturity, and the ability of state officials to manage differences. When violence enters the chamber of democracy, it is not just the individuals involved who are wounded, but the honour of the institution and public trust itself.

A recent altercation at the Riau Provincial Parliament (DPRD) building should serve as a moment of collective reflection. Regardless of the cause or who is responsible—which must await official clarification and an objective process—the incident presents an irony in a place that should be the birthplace of policy, not an arena for brawls.

The DPRD is a representation of the people’s sovereignty. Within it, differences of opinion are a necessity, even the spirit of democracy. However, these differences only lead to progress when resolved through argumentation, deliberation, and respect for ethics. When dialogue shifts to intimidation and reason is defeated by emotion, democracy begins to lose its dignity.

Thuggery is not solely synonymous with street violence. It can manifest in the behaviour of anyone who uses power as an instrument of pressure, threats, or domination. In the context of state administration, thuggery is born when authority is no longer exercised with wisdom but with anger; when a position is used to display superiority rather than to carry out a mandate.

Indonesia has affirmed itself as a state based on law, as stipulated in Article 1, Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. The consequence is clear: every state official is obliged to submit to the law, uphold ethics, and maintain the honour of the institution they represent. Power is not a privilege that frees one from moral responsibility, but a trust that grows heavier with the height of the office held.

Furthermore, every member of the DPRD is bound by a code of ethics that demands courtesy, integrity, and the safeguarding of the institution’s dignity. Therefore, if there are allegations of violations, the ethical and legal mechanisms must proceed professionally, objectively, and transparently. There must be no impunity for behaviour that injures the institution, but neither should there be judgment before all the facts are revealed.

The most valuable thing in a democracy is not power, but trust. Public trust is built through exemplary conduct, not fear; through integrity, not intimidation. The people did not entrust their mandate to their representatives to witness displays of anger, but to bring wisdom to every difference.

This incident should be a momentum for all public officials to introspect. True leadership is not reflected in the loudness of one’s voice, the height of one’s position, or the number of one’s supporters. Leadership is evident when someone can control themselves in the midst of conflict, uphold ethics above ego, and place the public interest above personal or group interests.

In the end, history does not record a leader for the magnitude of their power, but for the nobility of their character. For a position is merely a temporary trust, while integrity is a lasting legacy. If the chamber of democracy becomes filled with the spirit of thuggery, the first thing to collapse is not the authority of the individual, but the people’s trust in democracy itself. And when that trust is gone, all that remains is a structure of power devoid of meaning.