The politics of Prabowo-Jokowi’s domestic agreement, A mosquito net, a dream: people prostrate lethargic and benefit from the orchestration of an illusory regime – optica.id

🤍
Save article

By: Dr. Muhammad Uhaib As’ad, M.Si (Academician, Director of Political Economy and Public Policy Studies in South Kalimantan, President of the International Institute of Influencers Indonesia, Director of the Research Center and Political Marketing Consultant)

FROM COMPETITION TO CONSOLIDATION OF POWER

Optika.id – Indonesian politics over the past decade has presented an interesting phenomenon to read from the perspective of democracy and power relations. Two figures who once stood on opposite political poles, namely Joko Widodo and Prabowo Subianto, finally met within a relatively harmonious axis of power. For some groups, this political meeting is seen as a form of national reconciliation that could reduce political polarization after the elections. However, for others, this phenomenon is actually interpreted as a form of elite consolidation that reduces the space for opposition in the democratic system.

In a healthy democracy, political competition not only serves to determine who is in power, but also ensures that there is a mechanism to check power. As almost all political forces come together in a circle sharing the same interests, the question arises of who will effectively assume the monitoring function. Democracy requires dissent, criticism, and a balance of power so that power does not move unchecked.

The political meeting between Prabowo and Jokowi then became not only a symbol of elite reconciliation, but also the symbol of the birth of a new, very strong configuration of power. In this configuration, the boundaries between competitors and political partners become increasingly blurred. There remains the interest in maintaining the stability of power and the continuity of the political agenda built over many years.

A LIGHT, A DREAM OF POWER

The phrase “one net, one dream” can be interpreted as a metaphor for the harmonization of political interests that previously seemed contradictory. In politics, differences are often not an ongoing matter of ideology, but rather a matter of position in the power structure. When interests have found common ground, past rivalries can transform into very close cooperation.

This phenomenon is not unique to Indonesia. In various democratic countries, political elites often build pragmatic alliances to maintain power stability. However, the problem arises when the alliance is more oriented towards maintaining power than towards strengthening the quality of democracy. As a result, the space for political competition becomes increasingly restricted and leadership alternatives become increasingly limited.

Many people then understood that a change of government did not always result in a significant change in political direction. The face of government may change, but the actors in the circles of power often remain the same. This situation gives the impression that democracy works procedurally, but does not always result in substantive changes felt by society.

In such a situation, politics is more akin to a process of circulation of elites than to a real process of distribution of power. People choose, but the choices available often fall into relatively similar circles of interest.

NARRATIVE ORCHESTRATION AND WAITING PRODUCTION

One of the main strengths of modern regimes lies not only in their ability to control state institutions, but also in their ability to manage narratives. Today, politics does not only take place in Parliament, in palaces or in government offices. Politics takes place on social media, digital spaces, public opinion polls, and various communication instruments that shape public perceptions.

In this context, a government’s success is often measured not only by the results of its policies, but also by its ability to generate public optimism. Stories about economic growth, downstream, investment, infrastructure development and Golden Indonesia 2045 are part of the construction of hope that continues to occur in the public space.

Hope is certainly important in national life. However, hope can also turn into an illusion if it is not followed by real improvements felt by society as a whole. As the prices of basic necessities rise, jobs are difficult to obtain, purchasing power declines and social inequalities remain high, some people are beginning to question the distance between optimistic rhetoric and the reality they experience on a daily basis.

It was at this point that criticism emerged that the state was more busy managing perceptions than solving the root of the problem. The public is confronted with diverse success stories, while some community groups continue to grapple with concrete and pressing economic problems.

PEOPLE BETWEEN HOPE AND SOCIAL FATIGUE

In any political regime, the people are always the subject most often mentioned, but not always the ones who benefit the most. The name of the people is present in speeches, campaigns, programs and various official declarations. However, in everyday life, people often face economic challenges that are not simple.

The rising cost of living, job insecurity, high education and health needs and economic pressure on households are problems directly felt by society. Under such conditions, the various major development narratives sometimes seem distant from the reality with which they are confronted.

Some still hope that a strong consolidation of power will bring stability and accelerated development. However, others are beginning to fear that too much concentration of power will reduce the space for criticism and weaken the mechanisms of democratic control.

Social fatigue occurs when people feel that it is increasingly difficult for their voices to influence the direction of policy. They continue to follow the democratic process, but are not always sure whether their aspirations are truly the main factor in political decision-making.

DEMOCRACY, POWER AND FUTURE OF INDONESIA

Ultimately, the debate over political relations between Prabowo and Jokowi is not just a debate between two political figures. What is more important is how this phenomenon will affect the quality of Indonesian democracy in the future. Will the consolidation of elites produce a more effective government that is more responsive to the needs of the people, or will it actually reinforce the centralization of power, which is increasingly difficult to control?

Democracy requires not only stability, but also balance. Strong power can indeed speed up decision-making, but too dominant power without adequate oversight can potentially reduce the quality of public accountability.

Therefore, Indonesia’s biggest challenge is not only choosing leaders, but also ensuring that power remains within the corridors of healthy democracy. Criticism must remain alive, the opposition must continue to have space, the media must remain independent and civil society must remain active in monitoring the functioning of government.

History shows that countries never collapse from too much criticism. Instead, many countries experience decline when criticism is seen as a threat and those in power become too comfortable in an echo chamber that reflects only praise. In this context, the future of Indonesian democracy will be determined not by the strength of the unity of the political elite, but by the space left for the people to remain the true owners of democracy itself.