When a Honey Bee Queen is Stung to Death by Her Workers: A Phenomenon of a "Democratic" Incident in North Sumatera
There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust - Dorothy Thompson
Entry #12321-1:
Another soul has rested in peace, in the name of democracy. Another descendant of Adam and Eve has fallen as victim, in the name of democracy. When subjects turn barbaric, they are even more violent than a pack of starving wolves. They even dare to prey on their own pack leader, the alpha male. A similar incident happened recently in North Sumatera, when a group of people demanding for a new province (somewhat similar to a state, here in the U.S.) has caused the death of the Province Chief of the People Representative Board, (Alm.) Mr. Abdul Aziz Angkat. The chief is suspected to be attacked to death by participants and was even previously held hostage. Recent followups suggest that people are blaming the lack of security that causes this incident. In my view, this implies that such anarchist democracy practice is permissible, and it is the duty of security guards alone to prevent such incident. I argue that this phenomenon is a manifestation of a misunderstood democracy, and hence all elements of the social system are to be blamed. But then again, is this how democracy supposed to function? What makes subjects take over absolute power in such violent manner?
What Went Wrong?
Ever since the fall of the late former President Soeharto in May 1998, Indonesia has since misunderstood the concept of democracy. In my view, Indonesia is, and still is, learning the gist of democracy. And the result is, however, the rise of many demonstrations whose agenda ranges from one that truly represents and conveys voices of subjects to one whose participants just want to appear on mass media and create social sensation. By all mean, I do not intend to dispose the political system of Indonesia which I personally believe have successfully progressed. I applaud the government and his subjects for their effort. The problem lies within the subjects, who are learning democracy by hands on experience (learning by doing) rather by proper education and socialization. As a result, people seem to perceive that democracy means demonstration, an organized form of protest by a group of people. But the government is also to blame for his incapability to control his subjects.
I Would Like to Request for an Audience with His Majesty: A Historical View
In the past, during medieval times when monarchy is the only known governmental system, government, particularly the sovereign, owns the absolute power to control his subjects. However, absolute power tends to bring out greed and lust for money and power and is thus abolished or, if not, undermined to certain extent such as that practiced by the United Kingdom and many other existing monarchical nations.
In comparison to the focal issue of this essay, monarchy has successfully controlled its subjects and guaranteed security for the government. Subjects (are forced to) abide to regulations and etiquette on how to greet, to meet, and to express their voices and opinions to the sovereign. Almost all monarchies allow for personal "meet and greet" between each subject and sovereign, whereby the mechanism dictates that a subject request for a formal audience with the King (or the Reigning Queen) and the King is to address all concerns the subject expresses. During the late 18th century in France, however, the practice had been diverted whereby sovereign held audiences only with nobles and ignored voices of commoners; thus infusing the French Revolution in 1789.
Today's practice of audience between government and subjects has been enhanced to a more justified method that allows for all elements within a social system to be heard.. This is a result of the ideology of equal opportunity. Democracy is said to be "from people to people." I view that democracy is a manifestation of energy transfer within and between social systems and thus can be controlled and even be manipulated.
A Social System: Democracy as a Manifestation of Energy
Indonesia is, like any other nation, a social system which is "organized by a characteristic pattern of relationships." And as a system, Indonesia consists of a variety of persons, families, organizations, communities, societies, and cultures; all that define the notion of subjects, or agents as do many sociologists opt to define. The social system theory, developed by Niklas Luhmann, posits that a "social structure is seen as comprising the relationships themselves, understood as patterns of causal interconnection and interdependence among agents and their actions, as well as the positions that they occupy"(Lopez & Scott 2000). Such causal interconnection and interdependence form what is believed to be relationship as well as energy. In essence, a social system generates transfers of energy or information, within and between persons or groups of persons in a social system.
This energy may appear in forms of 1) capacity for action, 2) action, and 3) power to affect change. I believe that the philosophical perspetives of democracy embody all such forms. Democracy encourages the capacity for action, democracy induces action, and democracy infuses power to affect change. The philosophical gist of democracy defines the possession of power by people, and thus abolishes the absolute power of a (small) group of subjects, which in the past is possessed by monarchs. In common practice, government, hence, is viewed as a group of subjects, as opposed to an overprivileged group of people such as those of monarchy, who represents the people. This is one form of democracy, which is called the representative democracy. Other forms include parliamentary, liberal, constitutional, socialist, meritocracy, etc. Despite its various forms, democracy stands on one definitive keyword, the people.
Disbelief and Violation of Trust: Demonstration and Its Chaotic Appearance
Trust is a relationship of reliance. Trust is a mental state, which is intangible and thus cannot be measured directly; but the effect is visible. Trust is an important and integral idea of social influence, meaning that trust eases persuasion and influence of an individual who is trusting. Affection and respect are common results of when trust is successfully gained. When trust is violated, however, the trusting individual will definitely react negatively as a result of disappointment and it is very hard to regain trust from him (or her). In relation to the focal issue, when subjects begin to distrust government, they start to react to reinforce their concerns and will as far as replace the government which could turn into violence. This reaction almost always forms demonstration, however some reaction may be an assassination of a member of government in the worst scenario. In essence, almost all kinds of demonstration are triggered by distrust.
In my personal observation, there are three types of demonstration based on the intention of its participants and the amount of its participants. Such demonstrations include:
I contend that the government raises issues with demonstration and introduces more proper and civilized ways to express concerns and opinions. Government is indeed responsible to guarantee security, safety, and education of his subjects. As with many aspects of relationship within a social system, expressing concerns and opinions needs to be further regulated and violators need to be penalized. Often in practice, it is the outcome of the incident that is used for penalty, such as charging the ones responsible for death in this case. The regulation and etiquette for formal demonstration are there however they are not fully comprehensive and they are not sufficiently socialized among people. Such lack of awareness results in common perception that it is alright to march down the streets carrying pamphlets and boards whenever a group of individuals want to express their concerns and opinions. It is not sufficient to report your intention to demonstrate protests to local police station and to have security guards assist you while you are voicing your opinion! The government needs to raise awareness of the negative impacts of demonstration such as political and economic instability and distrust, horrendous traffic jam, business slowdown, etc.; all which are the lesser degree of negative impacts of demonstration. But most importantly, the government needs to raise awareness that democracy is not always equal to demonstration!
People need to be aware that there are other methods to voice their opinion and have their concern addressed by the government. But most importantly, people need to be rational and wise when they choose to march down the street. They need to consider the negative impacts that can inflict themselves, the opposing party, and many other civilians that have nothing to do with the agenda. Demonstration participants need to be highly organized and coordinated to avoid unintended third-party participants who wish to create instability (and obviously defame the agenda you're trying to express), and to ensure security and safety of themselves, the opposing party, and other civilians. Moreover, people need to be aware that demonstration should only be permissible if there is no other way to voice their concern. In other words, people should perceive demonstration as their final and desperate move to voice their opinion and concern when the opposing party, or the government, seems to be ridiculously stubborn. Other than that, demonstration is just a waste of time and energy that inflicts instability to the social system as a whole.
When you think you're starting to distrust your partner, negotiate with him in a rational and more civilized way. You cannot just march down the street every time there is an increase in the price of gas. You need to learn to trust the government, let the government do his job! It is our duty to ensure Indonesia to mature as a democratic nation.
RIP - Mr. Abdul Aziz Angkat
Scholarly References:
Entry #12321-1:
Another soul has rested in peace, in the name of democracy. Another descendant of Adam and Eve has fallen as victim, in the name of democracy. When subjects turn barbaric, they are even more violent than a pack of starving wolves. They even dare to prey on their own pack leader, the alpha male. A similar incident happened recently in North Sumatera, when a group of people demanding for a new province (somewhat similar to a state, here in the U.S.) has caused the death of the Province Chief of the People Representative Board, (Alm.) Mr. Abdul Aziz Angkat. The chief is suspected to be attacked to death by participants and was even previously held hostage. Recent followups suggest that people are blaming the lack of security that causes this incident. In my view, this implies that such anarchist democracy practice is permissible, and it is the duty of security guards alone to prevent such incident. I argue that this phenomenon is a manifestation of a misunderstood democracy, and hence all elements of the social system are to be blamed. But then again, is this how democracy supposed to function? What makes subjects take over absolute power in such violent manner?What Went Wrong?
Ever since the fall of the late former President Soeharto in May 1998, Indonesia has since misunderstood the concept of democracy. In my view, Indonesia is, and still is, learning the gist of democracy. And the result is, however, the rise of many demonstrations whose agenda ranges from one that truly represents and conveys voices of subjects to one whose participants just want to appear on mass media and create social sensation. By all mean, I do not intend to dispose the political system of Indonesia which I personally believe have successfully progressed. I applaud the government and his subjects for their effort. The problem lies within the subjects, who are learning democracy by hands on experience (learning by doing) rather by proper education and socialization. As a result, people seem to perceive that democracy means demonstration, an organized form of protest by a group of people. But the government is also to blame for his incapability to control his subjects.
I Would Like to Request for an Audience with His Majesty: A Historical View
In the past, during medieval times when monarchy is the only known governmental system, government, particularly the sovereign, owns the absolute power to control his subjects. However, absolute power tends to bring out greed and lust for money and power and is thus abolished or, if not, undermined to certain extent such as that practiced by the United Kingdom and many other existing monarchical nations.
In comparison to the focal issue of this essay, monarchy has successfully controlled its subjects and guaranteed security for the government. Subjects (are forced to) abide to regulations and etiquette on how to greet, to meet, and to express their voices and opinions to the sovereign. Almost all monarchies allow for personal "meet and greet" between each subject and sovereign, whereby the mechanism dictates that a subject request for a formal audience with the King (or the Reigning Queen) and the King is to address all concerns the subject expresses. During the late 18th century in France, however, the practice had been diverted whereby sovereign held audiences only with nobles and ignored voices of commoners; thus infusing the French Revolution in 1789.Today's practice of audience between government and subjects has been enhanced to a more justified method that allows for all elements within a social system to be heard.. This is a result of the ideology of equal opportunity. Democracy is said to be "from people to people." I view that democracy is a manifestation of energy transfer within and between social systems and thus can be controlled and even be manipulated.
A Social System: Democracy as a Manifestation of Energy
Indonesia is, like any other nation, a social system which is "organized by a characteristic pattern of relationships." And as a system, Indonesia consists of a variety of persons, families, organizations, communities, societies, and cultures; all that define the notion of subjects, or agents as do many sociologists opt to define. The social system theory, developed by Niklas Luhmann, posits that a "social structure is seen as comprising the relationships themselves, understood as patterns of causal interconnection and interdependence among agents and their actions, as well as the positions that they occupy"(Lopez & Scott 2000). Such causal interconnection and interdependence form what is believed to be relationship as well as energy. In essence, a social system generates transfers of energy or information, within and between persons or groups of persons in a social system.
This energy may appear in forms of 1) capacity for action, 2) action, and 3) power to affect change. I believe that the philosophical perspetives of democracy embody all such forms. Democracy encourages the capacity for action, democracy induces action, and democracy infuses power to affect change. The philosophical gist of democracy defines the possession of power by people, and thus abolishes the absolute power of a (small) group of subjects, which in the past is possessed by monarchs. In common practice, government, hence, is viewed as a group of subjects, as opposed to an overprivileged group of people such as those of monarchy, who represents the people. This is one form of democracy, which is called the representative democracy. Other forms include parliamentary, liberal, constitutional, socialist, meritocracy, etc. Despite its various forms, democracy stands on one definitive keyword, the people.
Disbelief and Violation of Trust: Demonstration and Its Chaotic Appearance
Trust is a relationship of reliance. Trust is a mental state, which is intangible and thus cannot be measured directly; but the effect is visible. Trust is an important and integral idea of social influence, meaning that trust eases persuasion and influence of an individual who is trusting. Affection and respect are common results of when trust is successfully gained. When trust is violated, however, the trusting individual will definitely react negatively as a result of disappointment and it is very hard to regain trust from him (or her). In relation to the focal issue, when subjects begin to distrust government, they start to react to reinforce their concerns and will as far as replace the government which could turn into violence. This reaction almost always forms demonstration, however some reaction may be an assassination of a member of government in the worst scenario. In essence, almost all kinds of demonstration are triggered by distrust.
In my personal observation, there are three types of demonstration based on the intention of its participants and the amount of its participants. Such demonstrations include:
- Demonstration that truly represents the voice of subjects. This type of demonstration can be bloody as it often turns violent. The mark of this demonstration is the amount of its participants, which is massively huge, and it is always sporadic and distributed everywhere within the social system. Every element of the social system initiates to voice his or her concern over, usually serious, issues that threaten the existence of the social system. In a political system, this type of demonstration marks the revolution of political paradigm. In essence, this demonstration is a clear manifestation of a loss of trust of subjects toward their government.
- Demonstration that conveys certain specific, or even political, agenda. This type of demonstration is less likely to be violent since its participants are trying to retain the positive image of the (political) group (or party) they represent. The amount of its participants is much smaller compared to that of the first type of demonstration. For political purpose, these participants often derived from the opposing group and they tend to nay-say or refute any policy and regulation of their counterpart, which is the government. The opposing group can be seen to have lack of trust toward its counterpart but it can also strive to defame its counterpart. However, this type of demonstration does not always convey political agenda as it can be a demonstration by a small group of civilians addressing certain social issues such as raising safe-sex practice awareness to prevent STDs, stop-smoking campaign, peace in Gaza campaign. However, this social-issue type of demonstration can also be steered or organized (i.e. manipulated) by certain political party with hidden agenda. This type of demonstration is very common.
- Unclear demonstration with no important agenda. The issues brought up are almost often unnecessary to the welfare of the social system. The participants are often those who just want to seek fame, create social sensation, and appear on TV. Most people are able to perceive and determine that such participants comprise of a very small group of people who have nothing better to do and just waste their time and energy marching the street, carrying pamphlets and boards.
What Can be Done?
The first type of demonstration is often very hazardous and the second type has the potential to be hazardous as well. It is the duty of all elements within the social system to ensure security and safety of their social system. Violence on the first type of demonstration is unavoidable since almost all elements within the social system react as a result of distrust while the government desperately counteracts to defend his authority. Although bloody demonstration seems to be unavoidable for the first type of demonstration, prevention and caution can be applied to the second type of demonstration. As a mere observing civilian and an outsider, I am incapable of determining the type of demonstration that happened recently in North Sumatera. However, I am personally certain that this demonstration can be categorized as the second type of demonstration based on its agenda and the amount of its participants within North Sumatera as a social system.I contend that the government raises issues with demonstration and introduces more proper and civilized ways to express concerns and opinions. Government is indeed responsible to guarantee security, safety, and education of his subjects. As with many aspects of relationship within a social system, expressing concerns and opinions needs to be further regulated and violators need to be penalized. Often in practice, it is the outcome of the incident that is used for penalty, such as charging the ones responsible for death in this case. The regulation and etiquette for formal demonstration are there however they are not fully comprehensive and they are not sufficiently socialized among people. Such lack of awareness results in common perception that it is alright to march down the streets carrying pamphlets and boards whenever a group of individuals want to express their concerns and opinions. It is not sufficient to report your intention to demonstrate protests to local police station and to have security guards assist you while you are voicing your opinion! The government needs to raise awareness of the negative impacts of demonstration such as political and economic instability and distrust, horrendous traffic jam, business slowdown, etc.; all which are the lesser degree of negative impacts of demonstration. But most importantly, the government needs to raise awareness that democracy is not always equal to demonstration!
People need to be aware that there are other methods to voice their opinion and have their concern addressed by the government. But most importantly, people need to be rational and wise when they choose to march down the street. They need to consider the negative impacts that can inflict themselves, the opposing party, and many other civilians that have nothing to do with the agenda. Demonstration participants need to be highly organized and coordinated to avoid unintended third-party participants who wish to create instability (and obviously defame the agenda you're trying to express), and to ensure security and safety of themselves, the opposing party, and other civilians. Moreover, people need to be aware that demonstration should only be permissible if there is no other way to voice their concern. In other words, people should perceive demonstration as their final and desperate move to voice their opinion and concern when the opposing party, or the government, seems to be ridiculously stubborn. Other than that, demonstration is just a waste of time and energy that inflicts instability to the social system as a whole.
When you think you're starting to distrust your partner, negotiate with him in a rational and more civilized way. You cannot just march down the street every time there is an increase in the price of gas. You need to learn to trust the government, let the government do his job! It is our duty to ensure Indonesia to mature as a democratic nation.
RIP - Mr. Abdul Aziz Angkat
Scholarly References:
- Lopez, J. and J. Scott (2000), Social Structure, Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
- http://www.google.com/url?
sa=U&start=1&q=http://www. csub.edu/~rmejia3/Social%2 520Systems%2520Theory.ppt& ei=iWCKSbIToZu3B9iMmZ0H&us g=AFQjCNHDTHqkAYyjqm5tPWmD J0CG-rJ8LQ
:: posted by Fari Nasution @
12:22 PM ::
::
:: 
