[Fragment 4]"Justice (adl) is a cornerstone of Islamic governance. A ruler's legitimacy is tied to their commitment to uphold justice, as reflected in the Qur’an and the Sunnah," NIfty continued. "The Qur’an emphasizes the importance of justice as an inherent quality of leadership:يٰٓاَيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ اٰمَنُوْا كُوْنُوْا قَوَّامِيْنَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاۤءَ لِلّٰهِ وَلَوْ عَلٰٓى اَنْفُسِكُمْ اَوِ الْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالْاَقْرَبِيْنَ ۚ اِنْ يَّكُنْ غَنِيًّا اَوْ فَقِيْرًا فَاللّٰهُ اَوْلٰى بِهِمَاۗ فَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا الْهَوٰٓى اَنْ تَعْدِلُوْا ۚ وَاِنْ تَلْوٗٓا اَوْ تُعْرِضُوْا فَاِنَّ اللّٰهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُوْنَ خَبِيْرًا"O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allāh is more worthy of both (i.e., more knowledgeable of their best interests. Therefore, adhere to what He has enjoined upon you and testify honestly). So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allāh is ever, of what you do, Aware." [QS. An-Nisa, (4):135]Power, when misused, transforms into tyranny (zulm), a grave sin in Islam. The Quran repeatedly condemns oppression, both by individuals and rulers. Pharaoh’s misuse of power is the archetype of tyranny, oppressing and rejecting divine guidance. His downfall serves as a warning to oppressive rulers (Surah Al-Qasas, 28:4). Some caliphs in Islamic history are criticized by Islamic scholars for indulging in tyranny and neglecting justice, such as Yazid ibn Muawiyah during the events of Karbala. Muslims are encouraged to oppose tyranny and speak the truth to unjust rulers:أَفْضَلُ الْجِهَادِ كَلِمَةُ عَدْلٍ عِنْدَ سُلْطَانٍ جَائِرٍ " . أَوْ " أَمِيرٍ جَائِرٍ"The best fighting (jihad) in the path of Allah is (to speak) a word of justice to an oppressive ruler." [Sunan Abi Dawud 4344, Sahih by Al-Albani]Islamic scholars advocate for checks on leadership to prevent corruption and tyranny. This includes Shura (Consultation): Leaders are advised to consult their subjects and advisors in decision-making."...And those who have responded to their master and established prayer and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves..." (Surah Ash-Shura, 42:38); Public Accountability: Umar ibn al-Khattab exemplified this when he openly welcomed criticism from his people during his caliphate. Limits on Absolute Authority: Al-Mawardi in Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah stresses that a ruler’s authority is not absolute and must adhere to Islamic principles of justice and equity.Power, when used for justice, aligns with the divine command to establish peace and fairness. However, unchecked power becomes a destructive force. The beauty of balanced authority in Sunni Islam lies in its recognition of power's potential for both good and harm, and its insistence on accountability, justice, and public welfare.In Economy and Society (originally published in German as Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in 1922, posthumously edited by his wife Marianne Weber), Max Weber outlines his influential theory of authority and legitimization of power. He identifies three distinct types of legitimate authority (Herrschaft), each grounded in different sources of legitimacy. These types are critical in understanding the foundation of societal rules and governance.The first type is Traditional Authority. It is legitimized by longstanding customs, traditions, or inherited status. It relies on established belief in the sanctity of tradition and the legitimacy of those who inherit authority within this framework. Leadership is often hereditary or based on customs, and power is exercised within traditional boundaries. It is common in monarchies, tribal systems, or feudal societies.Feudal societies were hierarchical systems of governance and economy that emerged prominently in medieval Europe between the 9th and 15th centuries. They were characterized by the decentralization of power, land-based wealth, and reciprocal obligations between different social classes. The feudal system revolved around land, which was the primary source of wealth and power. Lords owned vast estates and granted portions (fiefs) to vassals in exchange for loyalty and military service [see Marc Bloch, Feudal Society, 1961, University of Chicago Press]Society was divided into rigid classes: Monarchs or Kings: Held nominal authority over a territory; Nobles or Lords: Controlled large estates and served as regional rulers; Vassals or Knights: Provided military service in exchange for land; Peasants or Serfs: Worked the land and provided labour, often tied to their lord’s estate. Power in feudal societies was fragmented, as local lords wielded more authority over their lands than kings [see Henri Pirenne Medieval Cities: Their Origins and the Revival of Trade, Princeton University Press, 1925). Feudal law was based on customs rather than codified statutes. Lords acted as judges, and disputes were resolved locally [see Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford University Press, 1994). This work reevaluates the legal complexities of feudal relationships].Feudal economies were largely agrarian and localized, with limited long-distance trade during early periods. The economic counterpart to feudalism, manorialism, involved self-sufficient agricultural estates managed by lords and worked by serfs. Serfs were bound to the land and provided labour in exchange for protection and access to land for subsistence farming.Similar feudal structures existed in Japan during the Kamakura and Muromachi periods (1185–1600). Samurai were the Japanese equivalent of knights, serving their daimyo (lords) in exchange for land or stipends [see John Whitney Hall, Japan: From Prehistory to Modern Times (University of Michigan Press, 1970].The second type is Charismatic Authority is derived from the extraordinary personal qualities of an individual leader, which inspire devotion and loyalty. Charismatic authority often struggles to institutionalize itself after the leader's death or decline. Charisma is inherently volatile and dependent on the continued demonstration of extraordinary qualities. The third type is Rational-legal authority is based on formalized rules, laws, and procedures, where power is tied to official positions rather than individuals. It is rooted in the belief in the legality of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands. Institutions and bureaucracies dominate, with power being depersonalized and procedural. It is common in modern democracies and bureaucratic organizations.Feudal societies represent a pivotal period in world history, characterized by decentralized power, land-based economies, and hierarchical social structures. While they have largely disappeared, their legacy continues to shape modern governance, legal systems, and cultural narratives. The chivalric ideals of knights remain romanticized in literature and media.While Indonesia is no longer a feudal society, certain social, economic, and cultural traits rooted in its historical feudal structures persist today. These traits, though modified, reflect aspects of hierarchy, patronage, and land-based relationships that characterized traditional feudal systems. In pre-colonial Indonesia, kingdoms like Majapahit and Mataram operated under hierarchical systems where power was concentrated among kings, aristocrats, and local rulers (rajas, sultans). Land ownership and labour relationships were central to governance, with peasants working the land and providing tria bute to their lords in exchange for protection.During Dutch colonial rule, the Cultivation System (1830-1870) further entrenched feudal-like systems. Local elites acted as intermediaries for the colonial government, maintaining control over peasants and land [see Elson, R.E. Village Java under the Cultivation System, 1994, Allen & Unwin].In rural and political settings, relationships resembling feudal vassalage often exist. Community members align themselves with powerful figures (e.g., village heads, and local politicians) in exchange for resources, opportunities, or protection. In contemporary politics, local elites sometimes use resources to secure loyalty, mirroring historical lords granting land or privileges [see Edward Aspinall, Patronage and Clientelism in Indonesian Politics, 2014, Routledge]. Traditional roles tied to nobility, such as the Kraton (royal courts) in Yogyakarta and Surakarta, persist, where local rulers retain ceremonial authority and social influence. Communities in parts of Indonesia, such as Bali, maintain caste-like systems with rituals and roles tied to historical social strata.While Indonesia has moved beyond its feudal past, certain traits—patron-client relationships, land disparities, and social hierarchies—remain embedded in its socio-political fabric. Addressing these challenges requires balancing respect for cultural traditions with efforts to promote equity, transparency, and democratic participation.Feudal societies perpetuate rigid hierarchies where resources, power, and privileges are concentrated among elites. The majority, including farmers and labourers, remain disadvantaged with limited social mobility. This inequality exacerbates social unrest and resentment, hindering national unity and social cohesion [see James C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance, 1985, Yale University Press].Tania Murray Li [Land’s End: Capitalist Relations on an Indigenous Frontier, 2014, Duke University Press] discusses how historical land concentration persists in modern contexts like Indonesia. Feudal systems often unequally allocate resources, particularly land, limiting opportunities for marginalised communities. Concentrated land ownership creates dependency on elites and reinforces economic disparities. Limited access to land stifles agricultural development, worsens rural poverty, and encourages urban migration.Francis Fukuyama [Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, 1995, Free Press, 1995] highlights how meritocracy fosters economic growth, while hierarchical systems hinder it. Feudal systems prioritise hereditary privilege over talent or merit. This discourages innovation and entrepreneurship, as opportunities are distributed based on loyalty or lineage rather than competence. Then it might happen economic stagnation and reduced competitiveness in global markets.Edward Aspinall [Patronage and Clientelism in Indonesian Politics, 2014, Routledge] explores how patronage impacts economic governance. Patron-client relationships, reminiscent of feudal systems, can create dependency and inefficiency. Economic benefits are distributed unevenly, leading to corruption and resource misallocation. This undermines economic stability and fair market practices.Jeffrey A. Winters [Oligarchy, 2011, Cambridge University Press] analyzes the persistence of elite dominance in countries like Indonesia. Feudal traits manifest in political dynasties, where power is inherited rather than earned through democratic processes. Political positions are monopolized by elite families, sidelining capable leaders and reinforcing authoritarian tendencies. Under this condition, democratic institutions will be weakened, reduce public trust, and limit governance effectiveness.Michel Foucault discusses how hierarchical systems enforce control and suppress resistance. Feudal-like structures discourage freedom of speech and dissent, as loyalty to authority is prioritized. Citizens face repression for criticizing authorities or seeking reform. Political progress and erosion of civil liberties will be stagnant.Clifford Geertz [The Religion of Java, 1960, University of Chicago Press] highlights how traditional hierarchies influence modern cultural practices. Feudal values, such as unquestioning loyalty and deference to authority, can stifle critical thinking and individual agency. It will create resistance to modern values like equality, justice, and participatory governance. Moreover, it will slow cultural and intellectual progress, creating barriers to innovation.Benedict Anderson [Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Verso, 1983] emphasizes the importance of shared national identity over local allegiances. Regional elites maintaining feudal-style power structures can create divisions within the nation. Loyalties may align more with local rulers than with national identity. It weakens efforts to build cohesive national unity and identity.Amartya Sen in Development as Freedom discusses how systems of inequality undermine human rights and development. Feudal systems often exploit labourers and tenants, limiting their rights and freedoms. The result is vulnerable populations face systemic injustices, including unfair wages and restricted opportunities. The re will be violations of basic human rights and dignity.Deniz Kandiyoti [Women, Islam, and the State, 1991, Temple University Press] explores the intersection of feudal structures and gender dynamics. Feudal societies often reinforce patriarchal norms, limiting women’s roles in society. Gender inequality persists in education, employment, and leadership. This will slow progress toward gender equality and social justice.The persistence of feudal traits in Indonesia would hinder social, economic, and political progress, perpetuating inequality, corruption, and repression. Addressing these challenges requires fostering democratic governance, equitable resource distribution, and meritocratic systems. Indonesia's continued modernization and commitment to reform are essential to dismantle these remnants of feudalism.The relationship between feudal traits and political dynasties in Indonesia is a topic of significant scholarly interest. These political dynasties often resemble the hierarchical and patronage-based systems of feudal societies, where power is inherited or concentrated within families rather than distributed democratically.Feudal societies are characterized by hierarchical systems where power is centralized in the hands of a ruling elite, often based on lineage. Political dynasties replicate this structure by creating familial monopolies on political offices. For example, regional leadership positions are often passed down within families, limiting access to outsiders.Feudal systems rely on patronage, where loyalty is rewarded with protection or benefits. Political dynasties maintain networks of patronage to secure voter support, offering favours or economic incentives in return for political allegiance. In feudal societies, power is often inherited, with leadership passed through generations of a single family.In Indonesia, political families dominate local and national politics. Inherited power undermines the principles of democracy and meritocracy, restricting opportunities for capable individuals outside elite families.In feudal societies, local lords exercised significant control over specific territories. In Indonesia, regional political dynasties dominate provinces, regencies, and cities, often treating these areas as personal fiefdoms. This hinders democratic decentralization and fair governance.Political dynasties undermine democracy by limiting electoral competition. Voters often face limited choices between members of the same elite families. This erodes public trust in democratic processes and reinforces inequality.Political dynasties often rely on patronage networks, which can lead to corruption and misuse of public resources. Corruption weakens governance, diverts resources from public services, and entrenches poverty.Dynastic politics often favour elites, leading to unequal distribution of resources and opportunities. Economic disparities persist as political and economic benefits are concentrated among elite families and their allies.The deep-rooted respect for hierarchy and loyalty in Indonesian culture mirrors feudal values, making dynastic politics socially acceptable in many regions. Indonesia’s electoral system does not effectively prevent political dynasties, allowing them to persist despite democratic reforms.Breaking feudal power structures and dismantling political dynasties require a combination of legal reforms, cultural change, and active civic engagement. Historical examples from various countries show that it is possible to reduce the influence of entrenched elites and transition to systems that promote equality, meritocracy, and accountability.Samuel P Huntington [Political Order in Changing Societies, 1968, Yale University Press, 1968] highlights how institutional reforms help stabilize democracies by limiting elite control. Introducing or strictly enforcing term limits for political offices can prevent the monopolization of power by elite families. For example in the United States, the introduction of the 22nd Amendment in 1951, which limited the presidency to two terms, helped curb the potential for dynastic political control.In Indonesia, strengthening laws to prevent consecutive re-election of family members within the same jurisdiction could reduce the prevalence of political dynasties.A similar law like the Anti-Dynasty Legislation in the Philippines could disrupt the cycle of dynastic succession in local and national politics. Anti-dynasty provisions in the Philippine Constitution, though inconsistently enforced, serve as a model for addressing dynastic politics in democratic systems.Pippa Norris [Why Elections Fail, 2015, Cambridge University Press, 2015] highlights the importance of transparent elections in promoting merit-based leadership. Strengthening electoral commissions to ensure free and fair elections, reducing the influence of money and patronage. Electoral reforms in India, particularly through the Election Commission’s strict monitoring of campaign spending and voting processes, have helped reduce the influence of entrenched elites. Increased transparency and stricter monitoring of campaign finance can reduce the advantage of dynastic candidates.Robert A Dahl [On Democracy, 1998, Yale University Press] explores the role of political awareness in strengthening democratic systems. Educating voters about the dangers of dynastic politics and the value of choosing candidates based on merit rather than familial ties. Grassroots education campaigns could empower voters to demand accountability and merit in leadership. Civic movements in South Korea emphasized political education, leading to the dismantling of military-backed political dynasties in the 1980s.Chalmers Johnson [MITI and the Japanese Miracle, 1982, Stanford University Press] discusses how economic policies weakened traditional elite power. Encouraging economic diversification to reduce reliance on industries or sectors dominated by elite families. Policies encouraging entrepreneurship and small businesses can reduce economic dependence on elite families. Economic reforms in the 1960s and 1970s in South Korea, led by Park Chung-hee, reduced the influence of traditional elites by creating new economic opportunities.Breaking feudal power structures and dismantling political dynasties requires comprehensive efforts across legal, cultural, and economic domains. By learning from historical examples, Indonesia can pursue reforms that strengthen democracy, promote meritocracy, and empower marginalized communities. This multifaceted approach would enable the nation to overcome the lingering influence of feudal traits and embrace a more inclusive and equitable future.Some thinkers argue that power is intrinsic to human nature and central to our desires and motivations. In Escape from Freedom [1965, Avon Books], Erich Fromm contrasts power as domination with power as growth and mastery. He distinguishes between "power over others" and "power to act" creatively and responsibly. Fromm defines domination as an external and coercive form of power. It involves controlling others, often through fear, manipulation, or force, to assert one’s will.Power as growth and mastery s rooted in personal development, creativity, and the fulfillment of one’s potential. It is an inward and constructive force. Power over others involves exerting control or dominance to achieve compliance or submission. Fromm examines the psychological mechanisms that lead individuals to submit to authoritarian figures. This form of power thrives on fear and the human tendency to escape the burden of freedom by relinquishing responsibility. Power to act refers to the capacity to engage with the world creatively, responsibly, and authentically.Fromm critiques power as domination for its dehumanizing effects, arguing that it undermines both the oppressor and the oppressed. He advocates for power as growth and mastery, emphasizing its alignment with human dignity and ethical living.The power to act creatively and responsibly is central to Fromm’s conception of positive freedom. True freedom is not the absence of constraints but the presence of meaningful choices and the capacity to act upon them. Power over others, in contrast, reflects negative freedom—the rejection of responsibility and the retreat into authoritarianism.In contemporary contexts, Fromm’s analysis remains pertinent to discussions about leadership, systemic inequality, and personal empowerment. The distinction between domination and growth resonates with movements advocating for ethical governance, participatory democracy, and individual agency.The ethical dimensions of power, particularly in the context of modern pluralistic societies, are deeply complex, involving questions about justice, equity, human rights, and the responsible use of authority. In the next fragment, we will explore how power intersects with ethics in pluralistic societies, bi'idhnillah."
[Fragment 2]
