Is it Necessary for Tension between the State and Civil Society?

Photo by Luthfiah VOI

JAKARTA - As if not wanting to lose out on the heating of the geopolitical situation, especially in the Middle East, the domestic political temperature is also heating up. The reason is none other than the prevalence of criticism of the Prabowo Subianto government ranging from the Free Nutritious Meal program, budget efficiency to economic resilience which could have an impact on Indonesian politics.

"If you advise Prabowo, you can't either. Usually it is just dropped. That is saving, not saving Prabowo, but saving ourselves and this nation." That is a fragment of the statement of the founder of SMRC, Saiful Mujani, who can be called the main trigger for heating the temperature of the country's political temperature.

Moreover, after the video clip was re-uploaded to the public domain by the Presidential Staff Office (KSP) Expert, Ulta Levenia through his Instagram account. In fact, Ulta labeled Saiful as 'provocateur in academic clothes' and called the narrative 'provocation of treason'.

The word 'treason' thrown by the "insider" of the Palace indicates that the government does not consider this issue as a passing wind. The Presidential Chief of Staff (KSP), Muhammad Qodari, also regretted that the discourse on leadership change in the middle of the road was floated by academics, who were said to be not only dangerous for the investment climate, but potentially trigger social unrest that leads to economic setbacks nationally.

Indeed, this issue is not a trivial matter, but a sensitive and serious discourse, namely the alleged systematic attempt to overthrow the legitimate leadership of President Prabowo Subianto through extra-constitutional channels. But with the emergence of the word 'treason' from the Palace, it seems to have turned into a fundamental clash between the interpretation of freedom of expression protected by law and the rigid limits of national security of a country.

The public is now faced with a philosophical and pragmatic question, whether the current Indonesian democracy is experiencing a chronic blockage that triggers an explosion of frustration, or whether there is an effort to systematically mobilize power to delegitimize the government long before its time is over?

Avoiding Structural Tensions

Perhaps, both the government and civil society (civil society) including academics who often criticize the rulers can hold on to the views of the expert on state governance, Jimly Asshiddiqie. According to him, the government does not need to be reactive and respond to criticism from civil society including Saiful Mujani's statement excessively, as if the country were in a state of civil emergency. The reason is that the main issue of some public criticism including Saiful lies in the ignorance of choosing diction.

"Let it be, Saiful Mujani's way of speaking and grammar may be less measured. He does not believe in the mechanisms that are regulated in the constitution, namely impeachment, but instead dreams of it through people power," he said.

The former Constitutional Court Chairman said that in the era of information openness, the public is smart enough. The rational voice that rejects the unconstitutional discourse in the public is also balanced. Therefore, if the government responds too aggressively with legal instruments, it risks expanding the structural tension between state entities and civil society.

Jimly asked the government not to be trapped in an arrogant and adigang attitude, adigung in responding to the public's feelings that are stirring. A defiant and repressive attitude will only fuel the fire of anger at the grassroots.

"There needs to be softer communication from the president himself. Less explosive but unmeasured speeches. Learn from the leadership management of Pak Harto who is softer with measured language. True power does not always have to be displayed through the muscle of the law," he explained.

Head of the CSIS Political Department, Arya Fernandes explained that the implementation of democracy requires a strong opposition, and criticism is oxygen for a healthy power. But democracy also requires patience, because it has a rhythm that is deliberately made slow so that every defeat cannot be converted into destabilization, and every losing group can impose its will outside the ballot box.

He assessed that when there were parties calling for consolidation "outside the formal procedure" because the formal procedure was considered deadlocked, they were not saving democracy but were taking a shortcut that, if accepted as a norm, would make democracy itself untrustworthy by anyone.

"The root of the current problem is that the space for criticism of the government is almost completely closed, not because the people are silent, but because the channels are clogged. In the DPR, almost all parties sit comfortably in the government coalition. Those outside are not standing up as a counterweight. The result is that parliament functions more as a policy stamp than a filter. There is no meaningful pressure, no serious testing," he said.

He stated that although Prabowo occasionally invited media leaders to Hambalang for dialogue, it was not enough. The reason is that what the public needs is an open evaluation of policies and priority programs that suck in hundreds of trillion rupiah, and often cause controversy among the public. "If this formal channel is closed, it will have an impact on the expansion of the movement through protests and demonstrations, as happened in the August 2025 demonstration," Arya continued.

Unand Political Science Lecturer, Aidinil Zetra added that the Prabowo government should respond carefully and rationally if there is a desire for some people to overthrow the president outside the constitutional mechanism. "This is to avoid tension between the state and the community that could have an impact on the creation of public polarization," he said.

The political turmoil that has occurred recently shows the quality of democracy in this republic. On the one hand, it is seen how vulnerable and fragile the space for dialogue in this nation is, where sharp criticism wrapped in academic arguments can be easily answered with the stigma of 'treason' which seems to show that there is still a DNA of paranoia in the circle of power.

"On the other hand, this controversy slaps our intellectuals in the face regarding the importance of the maturity of language. Provocative narratives that lose procedural rationality will only produce chaos instead of enlightenment, which ultimately justifies the repressive actions of the authorities in the name of national stability management," concluded Zetra.