Maurisa Zinira
Democracy activists consistently predict polarization. While several groups argue that polarization is inevitable and may even serve as a catalyst for democratic development, uncontrolled polarization can undermine the fundamental principles of a functioning democracy. With the upcoming political year, there is a growing apprehension regarding the detrimental consequences of polarization. Furthermore, political elites may intentionally manufacture polarization to serve their partisan political objectives.
The topic of polarization sparked a compelling discussion during the special panel organized by IGSSCI (International Graduate Students and Scholars’ Conference in Indonesia) on November 7, 2023, at Gadjah Mada University. This forum, entitled “The Impact of Polarization Mitigation on The Promotion of Social and Environmental Justice”, featured three distinguished experts: Andrew O’Donohue (Harvard University), Damar Juniarto (Executive Director of SAFEnet and lecturer of digital politics at UPN Yogyakarta), and Ihsan Ali Fauzi (PUSAD Paramadina). The three speakers emphasized the importance of mitigating division to safeguard democracy and social cohesion from the adverse effects of polarization.
Polarization: Perpetrators vs Victims
Polarization frequently emerges as a result of intense partisan political dynamics. Interestingly, Andrew, Damar, and Ihsan Ali did not refute the fact that polarized political circumstances have been orchestrated or intentionally invented by opportunistic political autocrats to garner backing for their political objectives. The election periods in Indonesia in 2014 and 2019 exhibited significant divides that were intentionally exploited by political figures to undermine their rivals and seek widespread backing. Furthermore, given the prominent influence of social media, hate speech shared online has the potential to quickly incite and exacerbate political polarization, which remains highly intense.
According to Andrew O’Donohue, polarization unfolds in diverse forms. Regarding actors, polarization can be categorized into elite and mass polarization. Elite polarization involves the division among prominent political entities, including political parties, politicians, and legislative bodies, resulting from divergent viewpoints concerning statistics on parliamentary seats and legislative voting. Mass polarization, in this context, describes the fragmentation of the general public, typically concerning data on public opinion. Depending on its form and model, polarization can be categorized into two types: ideological polarization and affective polarization. Ideological polarization is the degree of strong disagreement among voters in the legislature about public policy matters. Conversely, affective polarization quantifies the degree of animosity individuals on one end of a divided spectrum have towards individuals on the opposing end. Indeed, polarization is an unavoidable outcome. Nevertheless, when polarization intensifies to a severe or pernicious level, it is crucial to promptly alleviate it.
It is important to anticipate certain events that can exacerbate or have harmful effects on polarization. O’Donohue identified several factors contributing to it, including divisive inflammatory political leadership, the transformation of the media landscape, the influence of social media, contentious political strategies, urbanization, social shifts, and inadequate or politically biased institutional safeguards. The presence of many religious, ethnic, and ideological identities can contribute to and exacerbate conditions of division.
Damar Juniarto stated that the utilization of social media plays a role in exacerbating political polarization. One reason is the extensive dissemination of propaganda by influential groups. For example, he noted a group of cyber troops emerged in the social media space to incite and manipulate public opinion on internet platforms. These cyber troops include buzzers (anonymous participants in online campaigns), influencers (individuals with notable popularity and a large following), and content creators (individuals responsible for generating materials, memes, and hashtags that the buzzers will spread). These troops are led by a coordinator who recruits them and organizes their activities, so that the cyber warriors will follow the orders and political objectives of the candidate they are endorsing.
Unfortunately, the government also joins this game during the political process by exploiting the excuse of combating hoaxes and fake news as a means to prosecute their political adversaries. Referring to earlier research on Justifying Digital Repression via Fighting Fake News, Ihsan Ali Fauzi mentioned four strategies often employed by the government to exert control in the online realm: 1] prosecuting specific individuals such as internet users, journalists, and dissidents, 2] pressuring internet service providers and social media platforms to restrict and delete content, 3] intensifying surveillance of social media platforms, and 4] completely shutting down internet access. Given this circumstance, it is evident that political polarization detrimentally affects democracy and must be proactively addressed to limit its impact on societal fragmentation.
Mitigating Polarization
Ihsan Ali stated that polarization leads to the shrinking of civic space in several forms. First, the shrinking of civic space is caused by restrictions imposed by both state and non-state entities. The state enforces restrictions through intimidation, physical aggression, online censorship, oppressive legal regulations, and the exercise of administrative power. Conversely, non-state actors may enforce limitations through intimidating and detrimental actions, such as intimidating discussions regarding specific topics like LGBT rights and protests against the Omnibus Law. Additionally, leaders of institutions like universities may intervene to restrict the freedoms of students, while online threats, such as a company threatening to sue a customer using the ITE (Information and Electronic Transactions) law, can also be employed. Second, the shrinking of civic space can be seen in the realm of law enforcement. Law enforcement continues to be conducted in a discriminatory manner because the process of criminalization disproportionately affects vulnerable populations and minorities, while politicians frequently enjoy immunity from legal consequences. Third, polarization also affects the division of CSO (Civil Society Organization) activists in their efforts to mitigate polarization. CSOs are frequently reluctant to express their criticism as a result of the danger posed by the ITE law.
To prevent polarization from becoming severe or destructive to democracy, it is necessary to implement several mitigating measures. O’Donohue remarked that while the process of mending divided social conditions is challenging, it is imperative to implement several options. These measures encompass institutional reform, conciliatory political leadership, grassroots research, and civic engagement.
In order to achieve institutional change, it is necessary to not only revise problematic articles, but also to ensure consistent law enforcement. The ITE article in Indonesia restricts civic spaces by instilling fear of expressing oneself and deviating from the norm. Minority groups continue to be subjected to hate speech in highly polarized social environments. Hence, in addition to reviewing a few problematic bills and bolstering civic collaboration, addressing polarization must also prioritize the recognition of marginalized victims who receive little attention.
Likewise, Ihsan Ali proposed three strategies to address polarization. These strategies include advocating for the reinforcement of moderate positions, establishing consistent and unbiased enforcement of laws, and urging civil society organizations to reassess their priorities and redirect their efforts towards safeguarding democracy at any expense. The resolution of this polarization may not be achieved immediately. However, by enhancing commitment towards mitigation and maintaining its regularity, the likelihood of political polarization in the following political years could be minimized.
