The Nov. 4 Rally is the Embodiment of Human as A Destructive Creature

How is such barbarity possible in the late Twentieth Century?”

That question came at the beginning of Jean Baudrillard’s writing, “The Transparency of Evil: Essays on Extreme Phenomena”, in the chapter The Mirror of Terrorism. How (and why) the primitive behavior still appears in the era of advanced technology, when human behavior –supposed to be- more civilized? Why violence can be so easy to slip intertwined in every side of our life?

The Nov. 4 2016 rally has revealed if we haven’t stepped our toes that far yet from nativism and tribalism. Initiated by FPI leader Habieb Rizieq Shihab, thousands of protesters flooded Jakarta demanding Ahok to be charged for his alleged blasphemy case. The protesters came not only from Jakarta but also from Yogyakarta, Solo, even outside Java such as Sumatra, Kalimantan and Sulawesi, of all ages. The uproar was triggered after a video of Ahok citing Al-Qur’an and made controversial comment in Kepulauan Seribu. This controversial speech was uploaded by a man named Buni Yani onto his Facebook page and went viral in other social media. As a result of it, everybody hits the ceiling in a sudden. Later, Buni Yani confessed if he had mistakes in transcribing the speech.

However, I have to to declare if I am not a big fan of his statement back in that day. I perceive if Ahok has not had the intention to insult other beliefs, but it seems no need to carry to those ethically wrong words. It’s just another example, if big-mouthed Ahok can lead problematic. Even in my opinion, every citizen is entitled to report anyone in the Indonesian legal system, so I respect the legal process that is currently underway. Regardless, the complainant(s) should be heartened if Ahok found not guilty considering twisted words from Buni Yani.

But let’s not discuss it. Things need to be observed more carefully is why there must be looting and racist sentiments when the demonstration takes place?

At the beginning, the demonstration runs quite orderly and peaceful, even deserve thumbs up when protesters took the initiative to pick up the garbage and to not to step on the city park. The tensions suddenly rose in a wrap, after the demonstration license was expired at 6 pm. Several protesters set off firecrackers, threw rocks, and burned two police trucks until police decided to fired tear gas to the protesters near the State Palace. Then, the riots moved over into Penjaringan, North Jakarta. At least, three minimarket were looted (by them, the nasty opportunists) and they shouted “Bunuh Cina!” and “Ganyang Cina!” and other hate speeches. There is also chaos in front of Ahok’s residence in Pantai Mutiara, also in North Jakarta, when mass gathered and make some similar noises.

Noticeably, this is irrational when the-so-called representatives of the Muslims have business with someone (Ahok), then the subject is a whole community of Chinese ethnicity. This argument is clearly, logically invalid. Even though Ahok is a Chinese-Indonesian, the demonstrators ought not to cornering all Chinese Indonesian community. We can’t make a generalization about what is true for some parts, can be applied to all, or vice versa. It is called pars pro toto, fallacy of composition and division. We can’t name of a portion of a man (Ahok) can represent its entirety (Chinese ethnic).

It’s really depressing when there are still many people who blame some minority ethnicity in Indonesia’s history that has experienced robberies, mass murder and rape in many years. Have you ever imagined your house knocked and when you open the door, you will be bayoneted in front of your family? You’ll never be paranoid as bad as Chinese ethnic people in Indonesia. They, the Chinese-Indonesian, through that bloody-dark era in many years, from Chinezenmoord 1740, to G30S/PKI ’65, to May ’98.

This racial hatred fueled and hijacked by the political identity separation, and hatred is ingrained, widespread, without any chance of reconciliation or explanation. This is exacerbated by our wick of anger that extremely short and laziness of Indonesian people to gather information and explore context. For the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, human was dominated by irrational and destructive impulses, humans are a bunch of vicious, cruel, and short-temper creatures. This is why human is also known as homo homini lupus: human is a wolf to another human that leads to collective wars of all against all, when everyone is a foe and competitor of everyone else (bellum omnium contra omnes). As a zoologist, Konrad Lorenz emphasizes human violence in his book, “On Aggression”.  Aggressive drive springs spontaneously from the inner human being even in the absence of stimulus. Human is a destructive creature by nature, not only by nurture. Back to Jean Baudrillard’s question about human barbaric behavior in the opening sentence, the answer to that question is if it was a false question. Barbaric behavior knows no time and will always exist, particularly for a country like Indonesia with inequality education and poverty that resulting social jealousy.

A source of violence can appear out of the blue, from the media agenda-setting that constructing hostility, to social inequalities, compounded as if this country seemed to facilitate and promote violence. I do not have a steady conclusion to offer. But let’s think for a moment (perhaps cliché) and open our mind whether the violence was the right thing to do? Is your dislike of a person based on inaccurate information, can make a particular ethnic shivering again in their trauma? Do not forget if they are human beings. They were experienced the terrors and injustice of it in the past, do not let this happen again to them.

Never. Let. It. Happen. Again.

Or maybe it is true if we’ve reached the point where we would be the most destructive creatures on earth. Perhaps this assumption is wrong. Please prove me wrong. And I hope I’m wrong.

The Decision

One of boldest newspaper in Jakarta – personally, I think this is the best newspaper in Indonesia – The Jakarta Post (Jakpost), declares that they’re endorsing Jokowi in the 3rd Indonesian presidential election. When the things became so crucial, we should take our decision to the best choice – borrowing Jakpost’s opening line on ‘Endorsing Jokowi’ – “there is no such thing as being neutral when the stakes are so high.” Taking side doesn’t mean you’re contravene with independency. Independency itself is way different than being neutral. When being neutral is choosing to not to take a side, independency brings you to stand on the right side, that is Jokowi. However, what I want to discuss in this writing is not about the announcement of Jakarta Post. Rather than that, I would like to focus on why we have to hand over our future to the right one. The day when we stab the nail in a ballot paper, more or less, indirectly determine of direction where Indonesia will be going.

I am not into less evil choice -ism to be a reason for my decision to choose Jokowi. Rather than that, for all kinds of reason, I put moral choice on the top of my reason why I am also supporting Jokowi. Indonesia at the crossroads. The fear of the chaotic of ’98 always haunting my childhood memories and I bet many people feel the same. The collective memories talk indeed. How vandalism, raping, kidnapping, human rights fallacies, and many other riot than happen caused by political upheaval at that day. New Order always be a nightmare, freedom can’t be taken for granted.

Black marks of New Order has been embedded in our head. Leaving the pros and cons, the truth is, Prabowo Subianto has responsibility to that dark era. He was known as a former Rose Team Leader, a team that had judged guilty of kidnappings many activists. The team has hid behind words “for their conscience, the state and nation”, while it seems to be for preserve the seat that Soeharto and fam sitting on. The other human right cases also brought the name of that former Special Forces Commander such as a village called Krakas, some 300 km from the capital Dili, in the district of Viqueque.

No wonder if the more numbers of (families & friends) victims are shouting loudly about human rights towards Prabowo Subianto before the election. It’s all about momentum, oportuneness, timeliness, and proximity. Fine if Prabowo assumes it is a negative campaign, while afterall, that is a fact, not a slander, nor a black campaign. But there is no other opportunity as good as this time, to reveal who Prabowo is.

Do not forget to mention Hatta Rajasa, whose being his own vice presidential. As well as Prabowo, Hatta Rajasa has a dark past. And a bad blue print too. In short, he is one of few figures that support to Bay Benoa (Bali) Reclamation, a project that destroyed coral reefs, mangrove forest, and other nature malfunctions. Also do not forget to his colleagues & coalition such as Aburizal Bakrie (head of Lapindo that spreaded mud flow in Sidoarjo & head of television stations & newspaper that oftenly broke journalism code of ethics), PKS & FPI, a hard-line Islamic group that conduct many numerous intolerant cases, and so on.

Prabowo Subianto itself as a person has being sufficient for me to not to give a single piercing on his photograph of ballot paper. I don’t give a rat ass to the person that has involved into many human rights cases. He made many traumatic to many mothers that hoping their lost-sons/daughters are back to the home, dropped the tears of many wifes and childs. The matter point is, it will be a big sin to hand over our future upon his bloodied hand. I don’t deign at all.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Jokowi and his team is a perfect choice. His inner circle is dangerous as well as Prabowo. The names like Hendripriyono and Wiranto are not a good guy. The first one deemed as a brain killer of Munir and responsible for genocide in Lampung. The second one also had many problematiques in human right issues such as riot, May ’98, and Santa Cruz genocide, in Dili, Timor Leste. Looking for Megawati, I realizing something. Back at 2009, she ran to be one of the presidential candidate with Prabowo. She also puts Hendripriyono in important position in PDIP. At one point, I am less comfortable with Jusuf Kalla’s statement in a controversial documentary-movie, Act of Killing. He stated that we need to legalize gangster to get things done.

The main reason why I stand on him is because hope. There is no hope in bloodied-hand leader, but there is a glimmer hope in clean-hand leader. Known as down-to-earth person, humble, and uncorrupt mayor based on his track record, why we should give him an occassion? He has not a business dynasties, his parents is a farmer.

His weakness is he thinks that everybody is good buddies. He was barely new, naive, and lack of political experience. So he never thought that there are many enemies who wants to bring him down. But, that’s why I support him. His innocent attitude never make him into wrongly decision. He was born in a lower class society, his heart of all that he did was to society. Back in Solo and now lead in Jakarta as a governor, his works could be felt by public. Therefore, I would like to say, only Jokowi could bring a change to Indonesia.

“we are morally bound to not stand by and do nothing. We do not expect our endorsement to sway votes. But we cannot idly sit on the fence when the alternative is too ominous to consider.”

(Jakarta Post, Jul 4th, 2014, on Endorsing Jokowi)

Indonesia no need to feel the damage again as hurtful as ’98. No need. Now, we get our freedom, not for free, not cheaply, not easily. Reformation, bureaucracy, and democracy that we breathe today can’t be hand over to the bloodied hand one. No I won’t.  We reach the fundamental stage. We know who had rotted down to the roots. We know the seed that still can be repaired. We knew it. A bulk of immoral track record on the left side candidate was clearly enough for me to not giving my ticket. Aftermath, I left the left side. Right here, right now, I stand on the right side.

Memilih Untuk Memilih atau Memilih Untuk Tidak Memilih

Sebelum anda membaca tulisan ini, saya akan menekankan bahwa saya bukanlah praktisi politik handal, hanya seorang mahasiswa komunikasi massa yang memiliki opini personal mengenai fenomena politik di Indonesia yang terjadi belakangan ini. Untuk itu, segala kekurangan dalam tulisan ini mohon pemaklumannya.

  *****

Hari demi hari berganti, Indonesia semakin kental dengan suasana pemilu dan partai-partai politik semakin sibuk dengan berbagai kegiatan politiknya masing-masing. Menilik isu-isu yang berkembang di pemilihan umum (pemilu) 2014 ini saya menangkap isu yang cukup sering dibahas mengenai golongan pemilih (mereka yang memilih untuk memilih dalam pemilu) dan golongan putih (mereka yang memilih untuk tidak memilih). Pada paragraf selanjutnya, saya akan membagi ke-2 golongan tersebut menjadi voters dan golput.

Voters berpendapat bahwa satu suara dalam pemilu berdampak positif bagi kelangsungan negara. Dengan memilih, mereka yakin jika mereka memberikan kesempatan menang lebih besar terhadap pilihan yang mereka yakini merupakan sosok/partai yang tepat untuk membenahi Indonesia. Mereka memilih untuk memilih.

Kemudian kita akan membahas golput. Golput terdiri dari 2 bagian yakni;

1)    golput teknis (tidak dapat memilih karena faktor-faktor teknis misalnya nama tidak terdaftar dalam DPT) dan,

2)    golput substantif (memiliki hak pilih namun dengan kesadaran sendiri tidak memilih).

Saya hanya akan membahas golput substantif saja. Golongan ini merupakan kumpulan individu yang pesimis –beberapa apatis- dan sudah tidak percaya lagi adanya calon legislatif/presiden yang memiliki niat baik dalam rangka untuk memajukan negara. Mereka juga memandang jika pemilihan umum tidak akan mampu mengubah Indonesia ke arah yang lebih baik. Mereka memilih untuk tidak memilih.

Hans David, seorang jurnalis dari Jakarta Post dalam blognya menuturkan, “The lesser of all evils is still an evil.” Kemudian, ia menambahkan,”Jika calon A punya track record pernah korupsi 100 M, calon B 200 M dan calon C 300 M, tetap saja memilih calon A adalah memilih seorang koruptor untuk menjadi pemimpin. Dan begitu dia menjadi pemimpin, hampir bisa dipastikan korupsinya lebih gila dari calon B dan calon C digabung.” For Your Info, dia merupakan salah satu tokoh yang cukup vokal mengenai golput. Hans David beranggapan (correct me if I’m wrong) bahwa tidak ada pemimpin yang dapat dipercaya untuk benar- benar bersih memimpin serigala-serigala di DPR yang menjilat demi mengeruk keuntungan pribadi maupun kelompok. Prinsipnya, para calon pemimpin hanya melahirkan jargon-jargon semu kampanye yang tidak akan bisa direalisasikan ketika calon pemimpin tersebut sudah memimpin.

Selanjutnya, kelompok voters beranggapan bahwa demokrasi berarti ‘dealing with humans’. Tidak ada manusia yang sempurna di dunia ini. Namun, voters merasa bahwa beberapa tokoh layak diberi kesempatan untuk memimpin negeri. Mereka memilih dengan menggantungkan harapan di bahu pemimpin yang mereka pilih sambil mengawasi jalannya kehidupan bernegara ketika mereka dipimpin.

Sejujurnya, saya harus mengatakan jika saya tidak tahu sisi mana yang tepat mengingat saya pun sudah memiliki hak pilih. Saya tidak dapat membenarkan – juga tidak dapat menyalahkan ketika ada banyak orang yang apatis terhadap pemilu dengan sistemnya yang semakin carut-marut dari waktu ke waktu, kemudian memilih untuk tidak memilih. Belum lagi dengan kebanyakan kampanye yang hanya menyuarakan gagasan tanpa menjelaskan secara jelas dan terstruktur bagaimana program-program tersebut (akan) berjalan beserta kendalanya dan kaitannya dengan isu dunia. Hanya jargon minim substansi.

Saya pun tidak dapat menyetujui maupun tidak dapat untuk tidak menyetujui jika kita harus memilih untuk memilih dalam pemilu nanti. Saya juga mengharapkan adanya satria piningit atau ratu adil pada sosok calon-calon yang ada, dan akan sangat disayangkan jika kita menyia-nyiakan hak pilih kita yang dapat digunakan lebih-kurang 5 tahun sekali. Dengan menggunakan hak pilih kita, kita bisa memberikan kesempatan orang-orang bersih dalam sebuah partai untuk berkarya dalam politik Indonesia.

Sekali lagi, sejujurnya saya tidak dapat menentukan mana pilihan yang paling tepat karena saya pun belum menentukan pilihan apakah saya akan memilih untuk memilih atau memilih untuk tidak memilih. Akan tetapi, baik golongan voters maupun golput nampaknya tidak perlu mempermasalahkan keputusan yang diambil 1 sama lain. Karena perlu ditekankan, pada hakekatnya dalam proses demokrasi, pemilih berhak memilih untuk memilih, maupun berhak memilih untuk tidak memilih. Namun, saya bisa memberikan sedikit arahan jika pembaca sudah menetapkan pilihan dalam menggunakan hak pilih anda.

Golput

DO

  • Tetap pergi ke TPU (tempat pemilihan umum) dan coblos partai sebanyak-banyaknya. Buatlah agar kertas suaramu menjadi cacat/tidak sah serta meminimalisir kecurangan.
  • Tetap awasi jalannya pemungutan suara dan lapor kepada panitia pengawas pemilu jika ada hal-hal yang mencurigakan.

DON’T

  • Membiarkan kertas suara tetap bersih tidak ternoda. Dikhawatirkan nantinya kertas suara milik anda akan digunakan oleh orang-orang yang tidak bertanggung jawab.

Voters

DO

  • Mencari informasi program-program sebanyak-banyaknya terhadap tiap calon dalam dapil wilayah anda.
  • Mengecek apakah nama anda sudah terdaftar dalam Daftar Pemilih Tetap (DPT).

DON’T

  • Tidak mencari tahu track record/sejarah calon pilihanmu, jangan sampai anda memilih calon presiden pelanggar HAM Internasional (Yes, I do sarcasm-thingy :p).

 

Last but not least, saya hanya dapat berpesan bahwa setiap individu di Indonesia wajib melek politik. Boleh anti-politik tapi jangan buta politik. Jangan mau dibodohi oleh penguasa lagi karena kamu tidak mengerti apa-apa tentang politik.

 

Benedictus Gemilang, Mon, Mar 17 2014 16:49 WIB

ditulis dalam hiruk-pikuk kampanye di bagian timur kota Jakarta