Thursday, January 17, 2008

In Arabic, “politics” is “siyasah”. Part of Islamic science discussing politics is called “fiqh as siyasah” or “political fiqh”. Academically, politics is close to ushuluddin or teology. Therefore, at IIUM (International Islamic University Malaysia), for example, if a postgraduate student takes Ushuluddin as his major program, then his minor program is usually politics. Hence, if a bachelor who has graduated from Faculty of Ushuluddin (Theology) is active in political world, then he is on the right track. Politics talks about power, source of power is God; and Ushuluddin or Theology is a science talking about divinity.

“Isim fail” (grammar) form of the word “siyasah” is “sais”. Betawi people use word “sais” to refer to sado or dokar (a small 2-wheel carriage) driver. There is indeed a similarity between a political actor and a sais (driver); both of them controls a power to achieve a destination. A clever sais can control his horse gently, the horse can run with a speed wanted by the sais, the horse can be also controlled to walk slowly when passing through a bad road, can be turned, and can be ordered to stop.

Furthermore, a horse’s character is indeed similar to that of politics. Politics is also a power that can be controlled to bring the actor to the political goal. The political controller should have ability similar to that of a sais, able to spur and bridle his horse at the right time. A horse can be wild and harm the sais and the carriage it pulls, while a uncontrolled politics also can be a boomerang harming the controller with his political carriage (party) he rides. A very hungry or weak horse can act very wildly and even kick the sais, while a politics whose needs aren’t sufficiently satisfied may cause a political anarchy that may kill or at least harm political parties.

Because of the wildness of the horse and for the smoothness of the trip, the sais closes some of the horse’s sight by using “horse spectacles” so that the animal will only focus on the path in front of it, it won’t be able look to the right or to the left, whatmore behind of it. Similarly, in political controlling, not all realities should be disclosed, accessible by anyone anytime. There are some facts that should be hidden from public, since if the facts are disclosed, public may be provoked by other political controllers to maneuver in anarchic way that can hamper certain political processes. Political honesty doesn’t mean that we are naïve, disclosing everything; instead we have to have a kind of political intelligence, knowing the proper form of openness, and how and when we should be open so that certain political processes can happen controllably.

Idealism and Political Pragmatism
For an individual politician, politics often has a negative connotation, for example in connection with political ambitions, political games, political money, and so on. Those are indeed parts of political pragmatism. For a society, especially for a nation, however, politics is a part of common management implemented to achieve common prosperity. With politics, a nation can achieve its glorious period: political, economic, and cultural at the same time. Failure of political management can cause a nation to lose its significant existence; the land is prosperous but the citizens are poor, the population is a huge in amount but they can’t be a subject, only becoming a global political object.
Therefore, a nation doesn’t only need an ideal political concept full of values of ethics and humanity, but it also requires political effectiveness. Like a horse, politics should be controlled appropriately. The problem is how to control politics ethically and at the same time effectively.
Ibnu Khaldun introduced the term “ashobiyyah”. According to the father of sociology, it is not sufficient to convey ideal political notions to the mind and conscience of people, since effectiveness of mind and conscience controlling can’t be measured. A concrete power is needed, which is fanatically supporting ideas of political elite. The concrete power is the support from majority of groups/people securing continuity of political program at nation level. The group supporting the government’s politics is called ashabiyyah.

Reform and Coalition
When Soekarno was implementing his revolutionary political idea, he intentionally formed a power ashobiyyah in form of NASAKOM (Nationalism, Religion, and Communism). All Soekarno’s revolutionary political jargons such as Manipol Usdek (Political Manifesto), crush Malaysia, and others are supported clamorously by the NASAKOM coalition, even the idea of Long-Live President actually a deviance from Constitution 1945 was supported by NASAKOM ashobiyyah coalition. Soekarno was failed in this case not because he wasn’t conceptional, but more because the Nasakom anatomically was difficult to be realized in practice.

Meanwhile, in implementing his political idea of New Order, Soeharto formed a power ashobiyyah in form of ABG (ABRI—Military and Police, Bureaucracy, and Golkar) coalition. During the new order period, the coalition fanatically supported Soeharto’s ideas and he engineered democracy so that Golkar always became the winner of General Election. His failure was not because of misconception, but more because he had been pretending as if implementing democracy.

Reform overthrowing Soeharto masterminded among others by Amien Rais, was more incited by hate on Soeharto and angriness to ABG coalition and its new order. Therefore, the reforms itself didn’t have appropriate conception (not conceptional). The reform process was like an anarchy taking place from Streets (Jalanan) to Senayan. Amandment 1, 2, 3, 4 caused the nation’s directional became obscure. New coalitions were often formed, but also unconceptional, merely coalitions of improvisation.

Nationhood Coalition was formed once, followed by People Coalition. It is clear, however, that the SBY’s government hasn’t been supported by ashobiyyah like Nasakom or ABG coalitions. President SBY puts more emphasis on political culture than on forming real political power. The existing cabinet is often called a manifestation of Rainbow coalition. This rainbow coalition indeed won’t be highly effective. Political parties like criticizing the President better than criticizing their own ministries in the cabinet. PAN even had left the coalition but still has been placing two ministries for SBY; funny, isn’t it? Ministries, governors, and regents are now more focusing themselves more on how to make their parties win in General Election 2009 than on making success current government’s politics. Golkar and PDIP also maneuver to form a coalition, but for supporting what? Political ideas or position targets?

Coalition as a form of ashobiyyah will indeed be needed for the government after the general election 2009 to support the continuity of the systemic change, not to secure one’s election for a position. It should be avoided that in the era without GBHN (state policy guidelines) we can only prepare “menu of development” without having the opportunity to cook it because this nation has been preoccupied with such political improvisation steps, whereas we are now in a global area in which this nation should reinforce its existence as a great nation. Without such reinforcement, 230 millions of Indonesian population would only become bubbles of the global sea. We hope that God protects us from being in that situation.