"An octopus asks his friend, 'What do you like least about being an octopus?''Washing my hands before dinner,' says his colleague.""In general, 'opposition' refers to strong disagreement or resistance expressed through action or argument. In sports, opposition refers to the team or person being played against in a sports competition. In physics, opposition refers to the resistance encountered by an object moving through a medium. In mathematics, opposition can be seen in inverse relationships. In economics, opposition can be related to externalities, and unintended effects of economic activities that affect third parties. In political systems, the term opposition specifically refers to the elected politicians who belong to the largest party that does not form the government," Cananga then continued while looking at a black-and-white portrait of a man, delivering his speech. Sutomo (3 October 1920–7 October 1981), also known as 'Bung Tomo' was an Indonesian freedom fighter, and is best known for his role as an Indonesian military leader during the Indonesian National Revolution against the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. He played a central role in the Battle of Surabaya when the British attacked the city in October and November 1945."The concept of opposition can vary depending on the context, whether it’s related to disagreement in general understanding, sports, or politics, and often involves contrasting forces, such as in physics, economics, or symbolism or metaphors.Opposition may also refer to the action of opposing or resisting something. It can involve expressing disagreement, criticism, or protest through actions or arguments. Disapproval and antagonism characterize opposition. When individuals or groups hold opposing views, they may act in ways that express their disagreement. Opposition can also denote a contrast or antithesis between two things. For example, the concept of 'nature-culture opposition' highlights the differences between natural and human-made elements. In astronomy, opposition occurs when two celestial bodies (e.g., planets) are directly opposite each other in the sky as seen from Earth. In astrology, it represents an aspect of 180° between planets, often associated with confrontation or revelation.In logic, opposition describes the relationship between two propositions with the same subject and predicate but differing in quality, quantity, or both. In linguistics, it refers to the relationship between alternative units within a linguistic system (e.g., distinct phonemes).Metaphors play a fascinating role in our thought processes and language. Our understanding may enriched by bridging seemingly disparate ideas. They allow us to explore complex concepts through vivid comparisons! According to Conceptual Metaphor Theory, people 'speak in metaphors' because they 'think in metaphors.' Metaphor is both a linguistic mechanism of semantic innovation and a cognitive mechanism. It establishes connections between different elements by pointing out similarities and creating new knowledge. Metaphor shows 'the similarities in the dissimilar', allowing us to understand abstract concepts through concrete comparisons.The phrase 'the similarities in the dissimilar' encapsulates a profound insight into the nature of love and its ability to bring unity and understanding to seemingly disparate elements of life. Theodor Adorno, a German philosopher and sociologist, once said, 'Love is the power to see similarity in the dissimilar.' This quote suggests that love allows us to perceive connections and similarities even amidst apparent differences and diversities that exist around us. At its core, Adorno’s quote posits that love has the remarkable ability to bridge gaps between what may seem incompatible or contradictory. It encourages us to look beyond surface-level dissimilarities and appreciate the underlying similarities that bind us all together. Love invites us to recognize the shared humanity within each individual, regardless of external trappings such as race, religion, or social status. It serves as an antidote to divisions and conflicts in our world. By seeing the similarity in the dissimilar, love challenges our tendency to categorize and separate ourselves from others. It fosters empathy, compassion, and unity, disrupting prevailing hierarchies and divisions within society. Importantly, love’s ability to see similarities in the dissimilar does not mean ignoring differences altogether. Instead, it celebrates diversity and encourages meaningful dialogue with those who hold opposing viewpoints. this concept reminds us that love transcends apparent disparities, allowing us to appreciate the interconnectedness of all human experiences.Empathy plays a crucial role in shaping our approach to opposing viewpoints. Empathy allows us to step into someone else’s shoes and see the world from their perspective. When encountering opposing viewpoints, we can listen actively and seek to understand the underlying motivations, fears, and experiences that inform those views. Instead of dismissing differing opinions outright, empathy encourages us to ask questions like, 'Why does this person believe what they do?' or 'What life experiences have shaped their perspective?'Empathy humanizes individuals with opposing viewpoints. It reminds us that behind every opinion lies a person with feelings, hopes, and struggles. When we recognize the humanity in others, we are less likely to demonize or stereotype them. Empathy fosters a sense of shared humanity, even when we disagree. In today’s polarized world, empathy acts as a counterbalance. It helps reduce hostility and promotes civil discourse. When we approach opposing viewpoints with empathy, we are more likely to engage in respectful conversations rather than heated arguments. We seek common ground and shared values.Empathy encourages us to question our own biases. It prompts us to consider whether our beliefs are based on evidence or simply reinforce what we already think. By actively seeking out diverse perspectives, we challenge confirmation bias and open ourselves to growth. Empathy builds bridges between people. It allows us to find commonalities even within disagreement. For example, two individuals with opposing political views may both care deeply about education or environmental conservation. Empathy helps us find those shared concerns and work toward solutions.Empathy is a key component of emotional intelligence. It enables us to manage our emotions and respond thoughtfully rather than reactively. When faced with opposition, empathy helps us stay calm, listen actively, and find constructive ways to communicate. Empathy invites us to approach opposing viewpoints with an open heart and a willingness to learn. It enriches our understanding, fosters connection, and contributes to a more compassionate and informed society.The concept of 'the similarities in the dissimilar' and the concept of opposition may seem unrelated at first glance, but they share intriguing connections. 'The similarities in the dissimilar' suggests that even when faced with apparent differences or contradictions, we can find common ground or shared aspects. Love, empathy, and understanding allow us to see beyond surface-level disparities. Similarly, in the realm of opposition, recognizing shared goals or underlying values can bridge gaps. Political opponents, for instance, may find common ground on certain issues despite their ideological differences. By focusing on shared interests, they can work together for positive change.Opposition often arises from differing viewpoints, conflicting interests, or contrasting ideologies. It can be seen as a form of intellectual or political diversity. When handled constructively, opposition becomes an opportunity for dialogue. By engaging with opposing perspectives, we can uncover commonalities and explore areas of agreement. Just as love seeks to find similarities, political discourse benefits from seeking common ground. Debates, negotiations, and compromise all involve navigating opposition while aiming for productive outcomes.In philosophical ideas, cognition, and language, the law of opposites is present. It stems from the Western philosophical tradition, which often distinguishes between the subject (man) and the object (world). This dichotomy emphasizes the contrast between opposing elements, such as light and darkness, good and evil, or conflicting forces.Nietzsche challenged the traditional view that metaphor emerges from the transportation of concepts. Instead, he revealed the metaphorical genesis of concepts. Concepts, rather than being the basis for metaphor, stiffen from metaphors. In other words, metaphor is logically and chronologically before the concept itself.The phrase 'the opposition in trade' metaphorically refers to competition. It implies that competition reduces the cost of supplies and living. Just as opposing forces compete, trade opposition can lead to beneficial outcomes.It’s fascinating how this 'opposition' concept weaves through various aspects of our lives!Literature and opposition are multifaceted and richly explored in various contexts. Literature and opposition intersect in myriad ways, fostering critical thinking, empathy, and dialogue. Literary works provide a lens through which we explore the complexities of human experience and the struggle for change. Literature often portrays characters or groups in oppositional roles. Literary works explore themes of resistance, dissent, and conflict. Many literary works engage with political opposition. Novels plays, and poems depict characters challenging authority, advocating for change, or questioning established power structures. Examples include George Orwell’s 1984, which critiques totalitarianism, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which exposes the harsh realities of Soviet labor camps.Literature serves as a platform for social critique. Writers use their works to address societal issues, inequality, and injustice. By portraying oppositional characters or situations, literature encourages readers to reflect on their own beliefs and values. Literary movements often emerge in opposition to prevailing norms. The Romantic movement, for instance, rebelled against Enlightenment rationalism and celebrated individualism, emotion, and nature. Similarly, the Beat Generation opposed materialism and conformity in post-World War II America.Some works intentionally challenge authority or dominant ideologies. Writers participate in literary activism by using their craft to advocate for change. Poets, essayists, and novelists contribute to social movements, human rights causes, and political debates. Literature wields the power of language. Metaphors, symbols, and imagery convey oppositional messages. Writers use language to challenge dominant narratives and create alternative perspectives.Metaphors that enrich our understanding by bridging seemingly disparate ideas, allow us to explore complex concepts through vivid comparisons. Satire, which often relies on irony and exaggeration, can playfully expose the absurdities within the opposition. Comedians use satire to reveal the contradictions and hypocrisies of political opponents. Comedians wield the power of satire to dissect and lampoon political issues, often with sharp wit and humor. To address opposition and politics, comedians use satire to highlight absurdities in political discourse. By exaggerating or distorting real-world situations, they reveal the inherent contradictions, hypocrisy, and irrationality of political systems. For example, Jon Stewart (host of The Daily Show) and Stephen Colbert (host of The Colbert Report) masterfully exposed the absurdities of news media, politicians, and partisan bickering. Their shows blurred the line between comedy and news, making viewers question the status quo.Satirical comedians challenge authority figures, including politicians, by mocking their actions and questioning their decisions. They provide a counter-narrative to official statements. Comedians create parodies of political figures, events, and ideologies. These satirical imitations expose the foibles and idiosyncrasies of politicians.Think of Alec Baldwin’s portrayal of Donald Trump on Saturday Night Live. Through exaggerated mannerisms and witty lines, Baldwin captured the essence of Trump’s persona, providing both entertainment and commentary.Satire thrives on irony and hyperbole. Comedians employ these tools to emphasize contradictions and highlight the gap between rhetoric and reality. Satire can 'humanize politicians' by showing their flaws, vulnerabilities, and everyday struggles. It reminds us that they are fallible individuals navigating a complex world. Trevor Noah, who succeeded Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, brings a global perspective and often uses his own experiences (growing up in apartheid-era South Africa) to shed light on political absurdities.Satirical comedy encourages viewers to 'think critically' about political issues. It prompts questions like, 'Why do we accept certain norms?' or 'What if things were different?' Comedians use satire as a powerful tool to entertain, provoke thought, and hold politicians accountable. Through humor, they navigate the complexities of opposition and politics, reminding us that 'laughter' can be a catalyst 'for change'. In doing so, they highlight the shared human flaws and vulnerabilities that exist across the political spectrum. By laughing at these flaws, we recognize our collective humanity.Both 'the similarities in the dissimilar' and 'opposition' concepts challenge binary thinking. Binary thinking is a cognitive framework that simplifies complex situations or concepts by reducing them to only two opposing categories or perspectives. It is also known as dichotomous thinking. Binary thinking helps us feel a sense of certainty, but it may also result in dualistic thinking or polarization. Binary thinking allows us to see the major advantages and disadvantages of a situation, but we may miss the finer details or the gray area in the middle.An example of binary thinking is when someone views a situation or action as either completely right or completely wrong. Another example of binary thinking is when someone categorizes people, ideas, or situations as either good or bad without room for anything in between. Binary thinking can also occur when someone evaluates another person’s level of intelligence as either smart or dumb. Binary thinking can also be seen when success and failure are viewed as absolute, black-and-white categories. Binary thinking can also manifest as a 'Us vs. Them' mentality, where people categorize themselves and others into in-group and out-group categories. Binary thinking can be seen when people categorize behaviors or traits as either normal or abnormal, without considering the vast spectrum of human experiences. Binary thinking can manifest itself when someone views perfection as the ultimate goal and anything less than perfect as unworthy or unacceptable. Binary thinking can also occur when people view complex issues like personality development as either entirely nature or entirely nurture-related, ignoring the interaction between both factors in shaping individuals. It is common for people to overlook nuanced details in favor of simplified big-picture narratives in all aspects of life from politics to art critiques. If we’re too focused on the big picture, we miss the important details. If we focus too much on the details, we may get waylaid and miss the big picture. A person with a balanced perspective will be able to view a situation from both perspectives and multiple angles and avoid fitting completely into one of these perspectives or the other.'The similarities in the dissimilar' encourages us to move beyond black-and-white distinctions, recognizing shades of gray. Opposition, too, need not be absolute. It can be nuanced, with varying degrees of agreement and disagreement. Acknowledging this complexity allows for more productive discussions. While seemingly different, both concepts invite us to look beyond surface-level differences, find commonalities, and engage with opposing viewpoints in ways that foster understanding and progress.In politics, opposition refers to the major political party that opposes the party in power. It seeks to replace the ruling party through elections. There are differences between opposition in parliamentary systems and opposition in presidential systems are significant and shape the functioning of democratic governments. In a parliamentary system, there is a close relationship between the legislative and executive branches. The head of the executive, often called the prime minister, is also a leader in the legislative branch (usually a member of parliament). The prime minister’s power depends on the support of the majority party or coalition in the parliament. The prime minister is directly accountable to the parliament. If the majority party loses confidence in the prime minister, they can be removed through a vote of no confidence. The majority party or coalition in the parliament forms the government. The prime minister is usually the leader of this majority. Parliamentary systems tend to be more flexible. Governments can change without new elections (e.g., through a vote of no confidence). However, this flexibility can lead to frequent changes in leadership.The opposition plays an active role in holding the government accountable. It scrutinizes policies, proposes alternatives, and participates in debates. Coalition governments are common in parliamentary systems. The opposition may form alliances to challenge the ruling coalition.In a presidential system, there is a much stronger separation of powers between the legislative and the executive. The head of the executive, often called the president, has only a limited role in the legislative process. The president is elected independently of the legislature and does not rely on legislative support for their position. The president is independent of the legislature, they are not directly accountable to the parliament and cannot be easily removed by a vote of no confidence. The president is elected separately from the legislature. The government is formed independently of legislative majorities.Presidential systems provide more stability. The president’s fixed term ensures continuity, but it can also lead to gridlock if the president and legislature are from different parties. Coalitions are less common. The opposition tends to be more fragmented. The opposition’s role is less defined constitutionally. It often focuses on public messaging, criticizing the president’s decisions, and using legislative tools.For example In Indonesia, the president is not directly accountable to the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR)) in the same way as in a parliamentary system. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister (head of government) is directly accountable to the parliament. The prime minister’s position depends on the support of the majority party or coalition in the parliament. If the majority party loses confidence in the prime minister, they can be removed through a vote of no confidence.In Indonesia’s presidential system, the president is independent of the DPR, so, the president is not directly accountable to the DPR. The president is elected separately from the legislature and does not rely on legislative support for their position. While the DPR has oversight powers and can pass laws and budgets together with the president, the president is not directly accountable to the DPR in the same way as a prime minister in a parliamentary system.In the context of a presidential system, a complex challenge arises due to the distinct sources of legitimacy for both the president and the legislature, the issue of 'Dual Legitimacy' may arise. In a presidential system, the president is directly elected by the people, granting them a separate democratic legitimacy from that of legislators. Meanwhile, the legislature (such as the parliament or congress) derives its legitimacy from the representative function—it is composed of elected representatives. The issue of dual legitimacy automatically arises because, particularly in times of crisis, both the president and the legislature can claim 'to speak in the name of the people'. Fixed-term elections mean that in a presidential system, the president’s legitimacy remains intact regardless of changes in the legislature’s composition.When the president and the legislature have opposing views or priorities, they may both assert their democratic legitimacy. This can lead to tensions and gridlock. During crises (such as emergencies, constitutional disputes, or political instability), the dual legitimacy issue becomes particularly nettlesome. Both branches of government may vie for authority, creating uncertainty. While dual legitimacy ensures a system of checks and balances, it can also hinder decisive action. The president’s executive power may clash with legislative decisions. Presidential systems must navigate this delicate balance between the president’s direct mandate and the legislature’s representative role. Striking the right equilibrium is essential for effective governance. Dual legitimacy in presidential systems poses challenges related to authority, decision-making, and democratic representation. It underscores the need for clear constitutional frameworks and mechanisms to resolve conflicts between the executive and legislative branches.In democratic systems, opposition is intrinsic to democracy. Opposition parties challenge the ruling party. They provide alternative policies, critique government decisions, and hold the ruling party accountable. Party-based opposition is widely considered the most effective form of opposition. In many autocracies, regime leaders divide the political opposition into a systemic component (allowed to participate in official politics) and a non-systemic component (excluded from elections and policymaking). Political opposition is essential for maintaining democratic accountability and ensuring a healthy political system. Whether in presidential or parliamentary systems, opposition parties contribute to the checks and balances necessary for a well-functioning democracy.Opposition parties in presidential systems encounter several challenges that can impact their effectiveness and ability to hold the government accountable. Presidential terms have fixed durations (e.g., four or five years). Unlike parliamentary systems, where elections can be called earlier, presidential elections occur at predetermined intervals. This rigidity can limit the opposition’s ability to time their political strategies effectively. Presidential systems often exhibit 'winner-takes-all dynamics'. The candidate with the most votes wins the presidency, and their party gains significant power. This majoritarian approach can marginalize opposition parties, especially if they fail to win the presidency. They may struggle to influence policy decisions or secure legislative majorities.While party support for the president varies, a presidential system allows for flexibility and encourages cooperation across party lines. In a presidential system, it is indeed possible for various parties to support the president. In a presidential system, the president is elected independently of the legislature (unlike a parliamentary system where the executive emerges from the legislature). Since the president does not rely on a specific party to form a government, they have the flexibility to build coalitions across party lines. These coalitions can be formal (such as forming a coalition government) or informal (where parties cooperate on specific issues without a formal agreement). If the president’s party lacks a majority, they can seek support from other parties to pass bills, approve appointments, or ratify treaties. If the president’s party is in the minority, they must collaborate with other parties. Opposition parties may support the president’s initiatives if they align with their own policy goals or if there are compromises. The president can negotiate with individual legislators or party leaders to secure their backing. For example, in the United States, presidents often work with both parties to achieve their goals. In other countries, such as Brazil or India, presidents have formed coalitions with multiple parties to govern effectively.There are of course the 'pros' and 'cons'. Broader support can lead to more stable governance. Cross-party collaboration fosters consensus and reduces polarization. However, balancing diverse interests can be complex. Ideological differences may hinder cooperation. Some parties may prioritize opposing the president over policy outcomes.Coalition-building in politics can be both advantageous and challenging. We'll explore the risks associated with relying on coalitions in the next episode, biidhnillah."
Citations & References:
- Amy L. Atchison, Political Science is For Everybody: An Introduction to Political Science, 2021, University of Toronto Press
- Stefana Garello, The Enigma of Metaphor: Philosophy, Pragmatics, Cognitive Science, 2024, Springer
- Richard Eldrige (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Literature, 2009, Oxford University Press
- Kliph Nesteroff, Drunks, Thieves, Scoundrels and the History of American Comedy, 2015, Grove Press
- Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Ernst Bloch, Bertolt Brecht & Georg Lukács, Aesthetics and Politics, 2007, Verso
- Jonathan Herron, Comedy-Driven Leadership: Think Like a Comedian, Move Forward Like a Leader, 2014, First Punch Press
- Matthew Soberg Shugart & John M. Carey, Presidents and Assemblies, 1992, Cambridge University Press.
