Melihat posisi masyarakat yang menguat dan negara yang melemah, bagaimana kemungkinan ideal tatanan kemasyarakatan?
“Sekarang ini, masyarakat tanpa negara. Sedangkan Orde Baru negara tanpa masyarakat. Tapi ini anarki, masak kita menghendaki masyarakat tanpa negara? Itu memang terjadi juga tahun 1945 bulan Agustus sampai Juni 1946, itu masyarakat tanpa negara. Tapi itu sementara, lalu RI membentuk negara. Dulu kok bisa, sekarang nggak bisa. Apa sekarang lebih bodoh? Mungkin jawabannya begitu. Kita lebih bodoh dari generasi Soekarno-Hatta.”
— Y. B. Mangunwijaya
My friend noted in his Instagram story:
I’ve been thinking that for us to be a better society we need to learn how to disagree better. What I notice, Indonesians tend to see disagreements as a zero-sum game that one has to lose so the other can win.
The “attack” often ends in personal attacks, while the idea itself is waiting to be sharpened—something that impacted the current majority of our thinking level: dull. Through a healthy disagreement, we’re able to see the flaws in ourselves without burning out and burning each other.
Make your arguments sharp to sharpen each other if we don’t want to end up with a sharp knife stabbed into each other.
I have so many thoughts on this, but the passage below is good enough to summarize a similar view. This is from Alan Sokal’s review of Arianne Shahvisi’s book. Sokal writes:
“The bottom line, as Jonathan Rauch has eloquently observed, is that there is a profound difference between cancel culture and honest criticism:
Criticism seeks to engage in conversations and identify error; canceling seeks to stigmatize conversations and punish the errant.
Criticism cares whether statements are true; canceling cares about their social effects.
Criticism exploits viewpoint diversity; canceling imposes viewpoint conformity.
Criticism is a substitute for social punishment (we kill our hypotheses rather than each other); canceling is a form of social punishment (we kill your hypothesis by killing you socially).”
I agree that criticism should not become a zero-sum game. To paraphrase Rauch, it’s better to kill our hypotheses rather than each other. However, several obstacles stand in the way of achieving this ideal method. In particular, I want to propose two issues that can complicate matters at hand. One is psychological, the other is sociological.
A Coalitional Species
To disagree better, you often need to learn how to see the world through your opponent’s worldview. This often resulted in you ending up making a more nuanced take on a given issue. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you ended up becoming a “centrist”. It simply means that your argument has more layers to it than if you were simply trying to “destroy” the other party.
However, in reality, if you expressed a bit of nuance in your disagreements, even a bit of ambivalence, you ended up being claimed to play “both sides” by, ironically, both sides of the aisle. This has been shown in an experiment that in polarized environments, being nuanced isn’t rewarded socially. In-group members perceive ambivalence as a lack of commitment or uncertainty, while out-groups remain unmoved.
This means, in practice, there are no incentives in being nuanced. The people who are on “your side” will think that you’re an unreliable “ally” to the group, while the people on the opposite side are not convinced that you are part of them. In short, you’ll end up “alone” and most likely not be accepted in any group.
In evolutionary terms, this is a disadvantage because rarely, one can rarely survive on their own. As noted by the pioneer of evolutionary psychology, John Tooby, if you don’t belong anywhere, “you were nakedly at the mercy of everyone else.”
However, to give ourselves some credit, we have survived for 12025 years (10000 years of civilization before Christ was born + 2025)—maybe more if we consider the full length of our species’ evolutionary journey—because of our capacities to form coalitions, despite their downside. This instinct is a feature, not a bug.
It’s also why one of the Black Pill that I tend to argue these days is that perhaps, in our disagreements, “truth” is of secondary usefulness in practice. Understanding this aspect of human psychology helps us to recognize that perhaps it is better to have something to orient a group, rather than an accurate assessment of the world. Of course, you need some degree of accuracy, but I think it’s to serve our social makeup.
Evolving Backwards
With all of that in mind, back to what my friend talks about on not engaging with personal attacks, it can be hard to apply, especially in giving criticism to politicians. My frustration these days, particularly with the government, is that there’s no room for people to make a more nuanced comment on their behaviors or ideas.
While there are a few times where they make an interesting comment here and there, more often than not, they make you question everything, giving you a headache as a result. It’s like I want to be fair with these people in power (as Pram noted with his maxim “adil sejak dalam pikiran”), but their acts are making it hard for me to do so.
To give a few examples:
“One day, an Indonesian could become Prime Minister in the UK, just like an Indian did. One of the best ways to dominate the global stage is through migrant workers,” said Abdul Kadir Karding, the Minister for the Protection of Indonesian Migrant Workers, as if an Indonesian becoming a prime minister in another country would magically solve the job crisis we’re facing here. The statement just feels off. It reaches for national pride, but completely ignores the real problems we still haven’t fixed at home.
Then there’s Investment Minister Bahlil Lahadalia, who boldly claimed that the 2,078 revoked mining permits were verified by the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources, “who is, after all, a PDIP cadre,” he added, as if to deflect blame or tie the issue back to the party. But not long after, he was publicly corrected by a PDIP legislator who pointed out the inaccuracy of that claim. After all, if we’re stretching the definition of “cadre” that far, then even the Minister of Finance could be called one too. And yet, there he remains, unmoved, still in office.
And there are many more.
This is why I accept Romo Mangun’s description that “we are more stupid than our predecessors—Soekarno & Hatta—generation.” Imagine seeing your country being wrecked not through a sophisticated level of grand scheme of atrocious acts, but rather through skilled incompetence and genuine stupidity. It’s a depressing notion to linger on.
Our First Cabinet
I found this book about Indonesia’s Cabinet from 1945 to 1965. Let’s take a look at the first cabinet (August 31 – November 14, 1945):
Mr. Achmad Soebardjo, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Co-author of the Proclamation; key independence negotiatorR. A. A. Wiranatakusumah, Minister of Internal Affairs
Former Regent of Bandung; later Governor of West JavaMr. Harmani, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs
Limited documentationMuhammad Suliyoadikusumo, Minister of Security ad interim1
Limited documentationProf. Mr. Dr. Soepomo, Minister of Justice
Architect of the 1945 ConstitutionMr. Amir Sjarifuddin, Minister of Information
Later became Prime Minister, a leftist leader, executed post-Madiun AffairMr. Ali Sastroamidjojo, Deputy Minister of Information
Later became Prime Minister; led Bandung Conference prepDr. Samsi Sastrawidagda, Minister of Finance
One of the founders of the Indonesian National Party (PNI)Ir. R. P. Soerachman Tjokroadisurjo, Minister of Prosperity
One of Indonesia’s first engineers, later Minister of EducationR. Abikoesno Tjokrosoejoso, Minister of Communications (ad interim)
Member of Panitia Sembilan that drafted the Jakarta Charter; brother of H.O.S. TjokroaminotoR. Abikoesno Tjokrosoejoso, Minister of Public Works
Mr. Iwa Kusumasumantri, Minister of Social Affairs
Marxist thinker, jailed by the Dutch, later the Defense MinisterKi Hadjar Dewantara, Minister of Education
Founder of Taman Siswa, the father of Indonesian educationDr. Boentaran Martoatmodjo, Minister of Health
Founder of the Indonesian Red Cross Society (Palang Merah Indonesia)Dr. Mohammad Amir, Minister without Portfolio
One of the founders of Jong Sumatranen Bond (JSB)K. H. Wachid Hasyim, Minister without Portfolio
NU figure, son of Hasyim Asy’ari, Minister of ReligionMr. Sartono, Minister without Portfolio
The first speaker of the House of Representatives (DPR) who shaped Indonesia’s parliamentary systemMr. A. A. Maramis, Minister without Portfolio
Constitution drafter; later Minister of FinanceOto Iskandar Dinata, Minister without Portfolio
Hero of independence; founder of Paguyuban Pasundan; assassinated in late 1945
Looking at these people, it’s no wonder Romo Mangun argues that the quality of our politicians has regressed. If you look back at the kind of political thinking from 1945 – 1965, it’s filled with something richer and complex, showcasing some of the most interesting arguments that still resonate today.
To make a sociological argument, it is easier to be nuanced when the people and ideas of our politicians are of merit.
My question is, do we see it in our current politicians? Unfortunately, I don’t think so.
Can somebody tell me how to get things back the way they used to be?
I’ll end it with this.
There’s a reason why it’s easier to deal with evil than stupidity. One is tempted to argue on those that are both evil and stupid, but I don’t think you can have both.
You can have people who are stupid and harm others, but not evil. Evil, at least at the macro scale, requires a certain degree of sophistication. It requires planning and meticulousness. And I’m skeptical that our current politicians have that.
Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing, I’m not sure. But now, that’s what we have to wrestle with.
On 19 August 1945, in a government decree issued by the newly independent Indonesia, Supriyadi was named Minister for Public Security in the Presidential Cabinet. However, he failed to appear and was replaced on 20 October by acting minister Muhammad Suliyoadikusumo.