by: Denny JA
Every citizen has the right to politics. This right is guaranteed by the constitution, human rights principles and democratic principles. There is also no principle of political ethics that is violated by the political rights of every adult citizen.
This political right also does not fail if the citizen is the son- and son-in-law of the president in power.
The above principles are ringing in my head. After reading the controversy over why, Jokowi allowed and even encouraged his son- and son-in-law to become regional heads.
The discussion became even more lively when the Son Gibran Rakabuming Raka won in Solo. And Bobby Nasution, the son-in-law, won in Medan.
Okay. Let’s start with examples in the world. Then get into a more conceptual debate.
-000-
In the United States, the Kennedy dynasty in politics has now reached the third generation.
United States politics since 1961 was colored by the Kennedy dynasty. That was when John F Kennedy (JFK) was elected president. Young. Intelligent. Handsome. provocative. Achievers.
JFK’s death for being shot in 1963, and JFK’s charisma when he became president, made the name “Kennedy” soar. The name became a mantra. It is a political tremor in the collective memory of the population in the United States.
The Kennedy vibe was even stronger when John F.Kenny’s younger brother also ran as a candidate for president of the USA in 1968, five years later. Robert has the same charisma. It also predicts him to be elected president.
But before being elected, it shot Robert Kennedy dead. In just 5 years, two of the most popular politicians of the day were shot dead. Killed. Both bear the name Kennedy.
The appearance of Ted Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, the youngest brother strengthened the Kennedy Clan.
Ted (Edward) Kennedy has been a senator from Massachusetts for 50 years since 1962. We have re him-elected as senator 7 times.
We know him as a very influential senator. 300 bills (laws) written by Ted Kennedy. He fought major policy issues ranging from AIDS, Immigrants to Health Care.
Including his latest political touch before he died, he campaigned for Obama. Ted said it would be good for the political tradition of the United States if we ever had a black president.
Now the Kennedy family in US politics has arrived at the third generation.
Joseph P. Kennedy III is the grandson of Robert Kennedy. He is preparing to become a senator. He has been a member of the Congress since 2013. (1)
Chris Kennedy is the son of Robert Kennedy. He is also advancing as governor Illinois, USA.
Ted Kennedy Jr. is the son of Ted Kennedy. He is already the second senator in the Connecticut area.
But no one is more proud about politics than Barbara Bush. Her husband George H. W. Bush is the president of the United States.
His son George W Bush is also president of the United States. Another Son: Jeb Bush was Governor of Florida. Barbara is the wife and mother of two presidents of the United States.
Dynastic political traditions have also become common practice in other democracies.
Nestor Kirchner President of Argentina in 2003-2007. When he finished his post, his wife Kristina Fernandes de Kirchner was elected to replace her husband (2007-2010).
Japan’s democracy is also characterized by many political dynasties. One thing that stands out is The Fukuda Family. Takeo Fukuda became Prime Minister of Japan in 1976-1978). His son Yoseu Fukuda also became the Prime Minister of Japan, in 2007-2008.
Also democracy in Europe. Giscard D’esteing President of France in 1974-81. His uncle and grandfather were also well-known politicians in France (Jacques Bardoux, Agennor Bardoux).
Why has political dynasties become a normal political practice not only in the United States, but also in Europe, Asia and Latin America?
-000-
The modern state is built on the principles of the constitution, human rights, democracy and political ethics.
Every citizen cannot have his political rights reduced simply because he is a family of the ruler. This is a principle of human rights. It is universal.
Every citizen must also be given the same opportunity in government. This is the principle of democracy. It also applies universally.
Citizens’ rights cannot be removed simply because they are children or son-in-law or the wife or extended family of the incumbent President. Or from the head of the region in power.
Even in the Indonesian constitution, it is clearly written in the constitution article 28 D paragraph 3: “Every citizen has the same opportunity in government.”
There is not a single article in the constitution, or in lower laws, states an exception. There was no sound: the president’s children and in-laws were prohibited from becoming president, governor, regent, mayor, members of the DPR, DPRD, and so on.
After all, at the end of the election,it is the people who determine the victory. Whether they elect a family of officials is fully the people’s right. It was completely a campaign battle.
In the 2020 regional elections, Jokowi’s son and son-in-law won. In the same year, Vice President Ma’ruf Amin’s son lost in Tangsel.
Never mind the president or vice president’s family. Even the incumbent president may not win if he advances. Megawati, for example, the incumbent president, lost in 2004.
There is nothing wrong with Jokowi’s children and son-in-law in politics. Even the family of previous Indonesian presidents also has a tradition of electoral politics.
Soekarno was succeeded by Megawati (President) and Puan Maharani (Chairman of the DPR). SBY was succeeded by Ibas (Edhie Baskoro) as a member of the DPR. Also followed by Agus Harimurti, who is now a Democrat, and has once run as a candidate for the Governor of DKI Jakarta.
Suharto was also followed by Tommy Suharto by establishing the Berkarya Party which also fought in the elections.
-000-
What about political ethics? Are there any provisions in political ethics or ethics in general that prohibit the family of officials from politics? (2)
There is no written code of ethics, either in Indonesia or in other democratic countries, in developed countries, which reduces the political rights of official families.
It is also impossible for a written code of ethics in a democratic country to contradict the supreme rule of the constitution, human rights principles and democratic principles.
What about unwritten ethical principles? Is there an ethical principle that prohibits the family of officials from politics?
Everything that is not written, that is not in positive law, that is not in a written code of ethics, is an open field.
That, if any, is simply the choice and taste of thinkers or activists. The principles of good and bad, right and wrong in morals are as numerous as the thinkers themselves.
That ethical taste is completely legitimate. He can be hugged by anyone. But it cannot be blasphemed to break constitutional and legal rights.
Nor can this unwritten ethical taste be opposed to human rights and democracy: all citizens have the right to politics. Including the family of officials.
But what is political ethics? Or what is more general ethics? Ethics are moral guidelines that provide direction, guidelines, signs, what is right and wrong, what is proper and what is not.
But right and wrong depend on perspective. And the perspectives in the post-modern era, in the era of the fourth industrial revolution, are not diverse.
Ethics itself rests on meta ethics. What is the basis of right and wrong?
Even for the meta-ethical level, there are three different schools. Namely the Normative, Consequential and Contractual (legal, written down) approaches.
That something becomes ethical, becomes right and wrong, may or may not be, good or bad, depending on the highest norms. If he defies the highest norm, he is wrong. If he conforms to the highest norm, he is right.
The problem is: where is the highest norm? There is no single answer. What is the highest norm, every philosopher can give different views.
Oh no! This is what consequentialists say. Whether something is good or bad, ethical or not, it doesn’t depend on the norm. But it depends on the consequences of an action.
If the consequences are good, even if He breaks the norm, He becomes good. Someone who lies (violates the norms of honesty), can actually be good, allowed, morally, if his lie saves innocent human lives.
But what is meant by good and bad consequences? As usual, each thinker can develop his own taste.
Oh no! This said the third stream. Good and bad are independent of the norm. It also does not depend on the consequences of an action.
The source of good and bad must depend solely on the agreement of a community. It depends on the residents’ written contracts.
Because it is good and bad, do not be allowed to confuse multiple interpretations. It must be interpreted in positive law. It can also be interpreted in a written code of ethics.
What is legal is what is ethical! If not prohibited by positive law. If not prohibited by the agreed code of ethics. That is fine. Legitimate. Good. Moral.
There are so many schools of ethics.
It is impossible for this unwritten ethical school to be used to blaspheme Gibran or Bobby, or any family of officials whose political rights are guaranteed by the constitution, human rights, democratic principles, theory and practice.
-000-
What if the authorities abuse their power to win over children and daughter-in-law? It’s a different topic.
But the abuse of power is wrong in all cases. There are no privileges for the president’s family.
Back to the laptop. That is why political dynasties are flowers that can grow in the garden of democracy. Slang kids say, it’s B. Ordinary.
Using an unwritten ethic stream to blaspheme the political rights of citizens (include family officials), which is guaranteed the constitution, human rights, democratic principles, it is the same as using a manual screwdriver to knock down a high mountain. **
Anang Fadhilah
