The notion of harmonious politics is akin to a virus, eroding from within. Yet today’s circumstances have heightened our awareness of its dangers. It seems to affirm the narrative that whether we embrace it or not, destruction is inevitable. As a result, its presence is managed half-heartedly. No one has succeeded in articulating a clear narrative or compelling justification for why such a vision of politics is necessary—or perhaps we simply do not need it at all.
Recently, this vision of harmony has been associated with the actions of President Prabowo. From his cabinet composition, which includes many former political rivals, to gestures like embracing opponents at his inauguration or hosting a dinner for the 7th President of Indonesia, many have interpreted these actions as departing from the spirit of political vengeance. But the question remains: why is this appealing to some? Is it merely ceremonial acts like these that bring joy to our society? I think not. Those who romanticize such moments have forgotten that our democracy and politics have lost much because of them. Today’s democracy does not need this kind of happiness. What we truly need is a continuous contestation of ideas in our political sphere.
After all, what is the meaning of intergenerational presidential dinners if the ones watching are poor families spanning regimes?
Politics and Contestation
Politics is a battleground for ideas. It is born from the inevitable antagonisms in human relations—a struggle of ideas that ultimately manifests politically as constructs of “friends” and “foes,” divided by an ideological chasm. It is within this arena that intelligence and public interests are not only declared but also fought for. Here, ideology functions not just as a moral and intellectual compass but also as a safeguard to ensure that no political agreement precedes public interest.
But this is precisely what has been lost in our political dynamics today. Political actors now tread the underbrush of politics not with the knives and swords of ideology but with the handshake of compromise. Parties, coalitions, and actors are no longer interested in ideological battles or struggles of ideas. They avoid them, fearing that they might be seen as inconsistent with the so-called national identity—which remains ambiguous—or perhaps due to far more pragmatic interests. Consequently, the political tactics offered today stray from principled ideologies, leaning instead toward co-optation and integration into the existing system. Such is the portrait of our politics today: a realm where actors are more comfortable agreeing with each other than pointing fingers across the debate table. They prefer the ceremonial stage over engaging in genuine ideological battles. This is the specific banality of Indonesia’s contemporary politics.
Over the past decades, the cacophony of our politics has lost its dimension of contestation. Politics has been degraded into a marketplace where transactions abound, but ideas and ideological struggles are nowhere to be found. In this political quagmire, public intelligence and all forms of idea contestation have been consistently replaced by political pragmatism, often benefiting only a small elite.
Instead of producing leaders with innovative ideas, this condition merely elevates individuals who are adept at administrative governance, devoid of academic merit. This is the essence of mediocracy. A political system—or democracy, if you will—that should be filled with the rationalization of public interests is instead reduced to ceremonial acts that aim to present a polished image of our political landscape, even as it crumbles like a sinking ship.
The essence of true political dynamics lies in the perpetual questioning of dominant ideas and narratives. This is not a simplistic reduction to public debates but a continuous presence of challengers capable of articulating new hegemonies, visions, and public intelligence. On the other hand, it also serves as a means to eradicate the vision and imagination of Indonesia’s political foundations, long corroded by the narrative of harmonious politics.
An Alternative Vision
We all know that the empowerment of demos in our democracy post-1998 has only given rise to the idea of civil society, which tends to stagnate. The so-called countervailing power falters when faced with the far greater force of party machinery.
This failure illustrates the strength of forces maintaining the status quo in our political system. These forces have successfully ensured that structures capable of organizing and articulating people’s aspirations remain stagnant. Chambers of power, or alternative spaces of authority hoped to catalyze change, are deliberately stifled by the scheming of status quo elites. Consequently, our democracy leans toward elitism, with power concentrated among political and economic elites, marginalizing substantive public voices.
To address this challenge, we need an alternative vision capable of resisting the hammer of elitist dominance that has long ruled the formal political arena. This vision must reconceptualize politics not merely as a struggle for power—whether through representation or similar mechanisms—but as an act of rebellion, liberation from the order built by dominant forces, and empowerment. Thinking about this vision means imagining an alternative political order: a counter-world opposing the status quo, striving to avoid the old ideas and patterns that have plagued formal political practices thus far. Beyond simply seizing power, this vision aims to transform how power is exercised and to distribute it more inclusively, fostering tension.
This vision need not be framed solely within revolutionary conflicts rife with violence. It can also be understood as a gradual shift—a process of voluntarily breaking away from the political conventions that have long corroded our system. The alternative dimension demands not only courage to disrupt the status quo but also the ultimate goal of building political infrastructure that enables people to play an active and sustained role in decision-making processes. In this way, a renewed antithesis of politics will emerge—a dimension rooted in the pursuit of liberation, solidarity, and empowerment.
Beyond Handshakes
Politics, in its most intense dimension, should not be an arena filled with superficial compromises or sentimental reconciliation born of shallow gestures of camaraderie. Our politics will not progress with or without ceremonial rituals like dining together, warm hugs, or congratulatory words. The thirst for moments masked by such political pretense should be seen as tools designed by the elite to prevent us from embracing a vision of politics filled with ideological and conceptual contestation—a vision for an anti-oppositional condition.
Once again, politics is an antagonistic arena that pits “friends” against “foes,” a confrontation unlikely to occur in brief warm embraces but emerges in ideological clashes. Political camaraderie, in many cases, is merely a mechanism to avoid the emergence of tension or an opposition axis, which is the core of political dynamics. As Jacques Rancière stated in La Mésentente: Politique et Philosophie (1995), true politics arises not in consensus—and certainly not in shared meals—but in dissent, in the tension between the legitimate and the oppressed.
All forms of political camaraderie between winners and losers should be questioned and seen as an effort to undermine the struggle. Therefore, there is no room for smiles or sweet words in political conduct; only a permanent battle of ideas exists, where its actors emerge in the arena of uncompromising ideological confrontation. After all, if some can suspect there is no public interest within the ballot box, why not also suspect that public interest does not exist at the dining table?
FADHLY SIBARANI
Master’s Student in Sociology and Political Philosophy – Université Paris Cité
