JurnalPost.com - Politics should be a space to bring together various societal interests, not create distance between them. Differences in choices, views, and interests are an inseparable part of democratic life. However, when these differences turn into hostility, politics loses one of its essential purposes: serving as a vehicle to advocate for the common good.
Society ends up no longer busy discussing how to solve the nation's problems, but instead trapped in debates over who to defend and who to blame.
This issue is relevant to Indonesian political life. Political competition does not only take place within the government or during general elections, but is also present in daily life, including within families, friendships, universities, and social media.
Differences in support for political figures or groups sometimes lead to individuals being judged based on their political choices rather than their ideas and actions. As a result, social relationships that were previously well-maintained can be disrupted simply due to differing viewpoints.
According to Jati (2022), in his research titled Polarization of Indonesian Society during 2014–2020: Causes and Its Impacts toward Democracy, the polarization of Indonesian society is linked to political competition involving identity and political preferences. The study demonstrates how competition in general elections can affect relationships between social groups.
This reminds us that the challenge of democracy is not only how to win political competition, but also how to ensure that such competition does not damage social life.
Identity Politics and the Challenge of Maintaining Unity
One issue that requires attention is the use of identity to build political support by pitting one group against another.
Religious, ethnic, cultural, and social background identities are parts of society that deserve respect. The problem arises when identity is used to foster hatred or build the assumption that certain groups are more worthy of being heard than others.
Yet, in a diverse society like Indonesia, everyone has the same right to express opinions and participate in democratic life.
Identity politics itself does not always mean something negative. Social groups that have been underrepresented can use their identity to fight for their rights and voice their needs.
What needs to be criticized is when identity is used to demean other groups, spread prejudice, or ignore the rights of those who differ. Politics should provide space for society to advocate for its interests without making differences a reason for hostility.
Social Media and Political Polarization
This challenge is also visible in the development of Indonesian politics, including the 2024 Presidential Election. Political campaigning no longer takes place only through direct meetings, billboards, and television debates, but also through TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and various other digital platforms.
Social media provides opportunities for the public to get to know candidates, compare ideas, and express opinions. However, the same digital space can also be used to spread unverified information, out-of-context video clips, and narratives that attack a person's character.
The report Digital News Report 2024: Indonesia written by Steele (2024) for the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism shows that social media plays an important role as a news source for the Indonesian public, especially internet users.
Amidst the ease of obtaining information, the public also faces challenges in the form of the spread of misleading information and declining trust in news.
This situation makes digital literacy an important part of democratic life. It is not enough for the public to simply receive and share information quickly; they also need to check sources, understand context, and consider the veracity of information before spreading it.
Van Bavel and his colleagues (2021), in the article How Social Media Shapes Polarization, explain that social media can influence political polarization through users' tendencies to choose information that aligns with their views, the character of the messages circulating, as well as platform design and algorithms.
Nevertheless, social media cannot be considered the sole cause of political division. Digital platforms can also expand public participation, assist in the dissemination of information, and open space for groups that were previously less heard.
The problem lies in how technology is used and how society responds to differences of opinion. When social media is used more often to attack people than to discuss ideas, the public discussion space risks turning into an arena of hostility.
In such a situation, society needs to build healthier discussion habits. Criticism should be directed at policies, ideas, and actions that can be accounted for, not at insults toward a person's personal identity.
We may disagree with the political choices of friends, family, or others. However, such disagreement does not have to end in damaged relationships. Differences in views can actually be an opportunity to understand one another if accompanied by an open attitude and a willingness to listen.
Maintaining Unity After the Election
The challenge of realizing inclusive politics does not end when election results are announced. After the competition is over, society must continue to live side-by-side as citizens.
Those who supported different candidates continue to interact in workplaces, universities, family environments, and public spaces. Therefore, victory in an election should not be understood as a reason to ignore those who made different choices.
The party that wins the election receives a mandate to run the government, but all citizens retain the right to voice aspirations and receive fair public services.
Conversely, the party that does not win the election also has a responsibility to respect the democratic process and use legitimate channels to voice objections.
Criticism and oversight remain necessary because both are important parts of democracy. Thus, political competition does not have to end in hostility, but can be continued through dialogue, evaluation, and the exchange of ideas for the benefit of society.
Inclusive politics does not mean that all parties must always agree or avoid debate. Democracy actually requires criticism, differences of opinion, and oversight of power.
Without all of that, public policy risks proceeding without adequate evaluation. Unity should also not be used as an excuse to silence criticism of injustice.
When the public raises issues regarding public services, inequality, or policies deemed detrimental, the necessary response is dialogue, not immediately accusing such criticism of being intended to divide.
In practice, inclusive politics can be realized through fair policies, non-discriminatory public services, and opportunities for the public to express their opinions.
Criticism of the government also needs to be viewed as part of democracy, not as a threat to unity.
In accordance with the motto Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity), differences should not be a reason for mutual hostility, but rather an opportunity to understand one another.
Unity does not mean that everyone must have the same view, but rather how everyone continues to respect the rights and opinions of others.
Ultimately, inclusive politics does not mean politics without conflict, but politics capable of managing differences without damaging social relationships.
The success of politics is not only measured by who wins the election or gains power, but also by how power is used to advocate for the interests of society.
A strong nation is not a nation where all its citizens always agree, but a nation capable of maintaining togetherness amidst differences.
Politics should be a bridge that connects society, not a wall that separates them.
Bibliography
Jati, W. R. (2022). Polarization of Indonesian Society during 2014–2020: Causes and Its Impacts toward Democracy. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, 26(2), 152–167. DOI: 10.22146/jsp.66057.
Steele, J. (2024). Digital News Report 2024: Indonesia. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford.
Van Bavel, J. J., Rathje, S., Harris, E., Robertson, C., & Sternisko, A. (2021). How social media shapes polarization. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(11), 913–916. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2021.07.013.
Comments 0
Write a Comment Share your response