Category: VII. On Politics

In a planet where opinions are openly contested—although not necessarily valued—everyone appears to disagree upon everything: environmentalists refuse the expansion of industry, liberalists oppose regulated markets, and technocrats always opt for continuous progress above other options. Deep inside, these people have an ideal picture about the future they want to live in and, despite the apparent dissimilarities, all of them are united by a commitment to the quest of accomplishing their visions.

I, too, have my own aspiration about how a perfect world should be.

For one thing, power tends to corrupt. The idea of social contract where abundant control is ‘voluntarily’ given by the society to a group of chosen individuals, therefore, has its intrinsic gravitation towards fraudulence. In many parts of the planet, this nature materializes in the form of strong soldiers killing innocent people for an invisible cause called ‘nationalism’, terrible misconduct use of budget that actually belongs to poor people, as well as limited freedom of speech over various means, justified merely by the paranoia of government officials. The most powerful ones ironically claim that they strive towards obtaining international peace when the only tools they use are guns and grenades.

The good news is, these conditions are not given; they are rather the products of a concept invented by the emperors and kings of Europe almost four centuries ago. Like any other invention, I believe that ‘nation-state’ also has its expiration date. Today, this process is further accelerated by globalization and technology, both of which have been escorting the global civil society to be stronger than ever. Just in the last few decades, transnational solidarity and tolerance have proven itself to be so powerful it can change the decisions taken by world leaders.

It is therefore possible that in less than a hundred years, states’ dominance will be replaced by a network of restless efforts and voices of the people. When the time comes, we might also overhaul the current system and recreate the foundation of this planet—because human beings deserve a better future. A completely different world from what we have now.

In that world, the only spoken language will be the language of unity. The disappearance of the word ‘nationality’ will be accompanied by the extinction of ‘gender’, ‘race’, ‘class’, as well as ‘ethnicity’. All of them will no longer be printed in dictionaries of any tongue, replaced by vocabularies of equality and justice. As the consequence, the level of misunderstandings between humans will greatly decrease, along with the ridiculous hatred among them.

In that world, the only visa required will be your birth certificate. Every newborn baby will be a citizen of the world, and one day he/she will settle down in a territory that needs him/her the most, regardless their blood relation. No one will be able to prohibit any individual from travelling and experiencing the journey of their life for one-sided political grounds.

In that world, the only valid money will be in the currency of love. When power is no longer a transactional commodity, it should be distributed equally to the people who need it. ‘Empowerment’ will become the main jargon of the next generation’s civilization, as they realize that leaving behind marginalized groups will equal the beginning of their own devastating loss. The economy will not be run under forced egalitarianism, but rather constructed upon the essential awareness that—at the very least—one shall not become a burden to the others.

In that world, the only prevailing religion will be humanity. Yes, everyone will still hold to their faith in different gods and rituals, but they all perceive one another as one big family. While safeguarding an even richer diversity of beliefs, conscience will speak louder than man-interpreted sacred texts, and mortals will be able to value life more than ever before. Wars will be kept in museums forever, visited by people only to remind themselves about the horrendous history mankind once had and shall never be repeated.

In that world, there will be no states. There are only I, you, and billions of people who give up the identity that our governments and grandparents once dictated us to have. There will only be a peaceful planet filled with men and women who regard differences as something to be grateful of, and impartial justice as their non-negotiable principle.

[P.S. This essay was submitted to the UNESCO-GOI Peace International Essay Contest for Young People and surprisingly got me the 3rd Prize, alongside with other wonderful writers from across the globe.]

Social scientists are delusional people who think that they’re not part of the society and thus are justified to draw and analyze societal patterns.

The bad news is, they are part of the society that they address in their own papers, they are the subject of their own academic frameworks contended in thorough discourses, and thenceforth–most of the times–it makes their efforts in explaining social phenomena an ironic paradox.

One interesting case study for this issue would be campus’ politics, i.e. General Election of the Head of Students’ Executive Body (read: Ketua Badan Eksekutif Mahasiswa). Being a student who belongs to the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences of Universitas Indonesia means having an in-depth comprehension towards the tenets of ‘political communication’ and ‘meme inducing’ theoretically, but then having to be the subject of your own study, being part of the community that their campaigns target.

In other words, you’re like a god who knows exactly what’s going on but chooses to play in the game he creates himself.

Well, of course, I always say that social science(s) matters because it explicates what is going right or wrong with the society, but then it also has inherent sprag that retains them from being completely–in natural science’s terminology–‘scientific’, ergo, objective.

We, naive, aspiring scholars of international relations, are often disturbed by the fact that states (even as a unitary actor) still include individuals in which we’re sadly a part of it too. The way I deal with the same paradox in international relations study is through intellectual acceptance. We might be more fortunate because, in a way, our conceptual tools of analysis are set on the level that we don’t have to deal with social scientists’ common anxiety. Still, the ‘objectivity’ issue can not be entirely resolved.

Regardless how apathetic I might appear in all of this long process of ‘democracy’, I am an avid admirer of the fundamental philosophy of social contract (all hail Hobbes and Locke!), in which politics is a mean to–using my favorite verb–‘organize’ power and alleviate chaos that might be yielded by the anarchic system of the society.

So good night, and good luck for all contesting candidates!

(Disclaimer: don’t hate me if this post sounds extremely cynical and not giving solutions. I’m just one of those desperately disappointed customers–or simply observer–who would like to give a wake up call.)

My hypothesis: it possesses none. And by train, I refer to the people behind their desks who decide policies that affect the whole commuting society in Jakarta, Depok, Bogor, and their surroundings.

Assuming they do have it, my experiences conclude that it can never be publicly accepted for its different nature. The logic, I mean. Let’s take a look to several points below; according to the train:

• Our society is divided into three classes: a) the have–who can pay Rp 9.000 for a Pakuan ride, b) the semi-have–who are charged by Rp 5.500 one way, and c) the poor–God knows if they really pay the budget ticket that costs them Rp 2.000. Instead of being a ‘one for all’ public transportation, the train feels it safe enough to let the economic gap stay that way. Genius.
• The have have the absolute right to do whatever they want to the poor just because their train takes more money from their pocket. This includes forcing them to wait at Stasiun Depok or Stasiun Manggarai for ‘a while’ after their mighty Pakuan gets ahead.
• The poor can’t sit on the top of their train on their own risk because it’s dangerous, but the have can violate the rule of ‘no sitting on the floor’ and ‘no extra seats’ inside the coach (which is evidently annoying throughout hectic hours)–because they pay those little seats themselves?
• Female have should enjoy full protection from those mashers with a gerbong khusus wanita but the same rights don’t go to the female poor. (What? They pay us Rp 2.000 a ride and expect us to protect them? Don’t be silly!)

The scariest gap in our society is that several feet from express train to the budget one. Indonesia needs a change, young minds.

Of course. Really, I just don’t get it.

One day, just a moment in the future, this saddening system should change. Either I take the power myself and enhance better performance in every level of service in public transportation i.e. commuter trains, or I’ll persuade my future students to do so. Someone with vision should take the lead, yo.