Love: What Is Love? (1)

The late John Lennon once wrote a song entitled "Love". He started with,

Love is real, real is love

Love is feeling, feeling love

Love is wanting to be loved

In these lines, Lennon distils love into its purest and most vulnerable form, stripping away sentimentality and leaving only the essence of human connection. His phrasing is circular, almost meditative, as if he is reminding us that love is both the beginning and the conclusion of our emotional lives. When he says, “Love is real, real is love,” he is not trying to define love through logic but through presence — love is something that exists because we experience it, not because we can explain it. The truthfulness of love, in his view, is not found in declarations or grand gestures but in the quiet authenticity between two souls who recognise each other.

“Love is feeling, feeling love” suggests that love cannot be detached from emotion; love is not an idea but a lived experience. It vibrates through the body before it ever reaches the mind. Lennon subtly argues that love is not what we think, but what we allow ourselves to feel.

And when he concludes with “Love is wanting to be loved,” he exposes the delicate, almost childlike longing at the centre of every human heart. We love not only because we choose to, but because we yearn to be seen, to be held, and to be accepted. In this way, Lennon turns love into a mirror—it reflects both our desire to give and our hunger to receive.

Love is the quiet, unspoken certainty that another person’s presence rearranges the rhythm of your days, turning the ordinary into something quietly extraordinary without demanding anything in return. It is the peculiar warmth that lingers in the spaces between conversations, the gentle loyalty that persists even when tempers fray, and the willingness to see someone not merely as they are, but as they could become. Love is not a dramatic crescendo but a steady, deliberate choosing—again and again—especially on the days when that choice feels less convenient. It is the courage to remain soft in a world that rewards the hard-hearted, the patience to understand rather than assume, and the tenderness to stay when it would be easier to walk away. Above all, love is the continuous act of giving without keeping score, trusting that what is sincere will return in its own time and in its own way.

In All About Love: New Visions (2000, published by William Morrow), bell hooks—a prolific American author, feminist, professor, and social critic, she was important for her influential work as a cultural critic, feminist, and author who explored the interconnectedness of race, class, and gender to analyze systems of oppression—defines love as a conscious choice to nurture one’s own and another’s spiritual growth, rather than as a fleeting feeling or an uncontrollable emotion. She insists that love must be understood as an action sustained by honesty, responsibility, respect, trust, and a willingness to care, because affection without these ethical foundations easily mutates into manipulation or dependency. For hooks, love becomes meaningful only when it is practised intentionally, as a daily discipline that transforms the self and strengthens human bonds. She argues that modern societies frequently confuse love with desire, possession, or the pursuit of validation, thereby producing individuals who fear vulnerability yet crave intimacy. Her vision of love calls readers to unlearn those harmful cultural scripts and to embrace love as a liberating practice that demands courage, truth-telling, and a commitment to mutual flourishing.

In All About Love: New Visions, bell hooks identifies five essential components that constitute true love, which are necessary to practise love responsibly and meaningfully. The first element is care. She explains that love involves actively attending to the needs and well-being of oneself and others, which requires attentiveness and consideration rather than mere sentiment. The second element is responsibility. Hooks emphasises that love is an ethical commitment: it is a deliberate choice to act in ways that support the growth and flourishing of those we love. The third element is respect. Love entails recognising the intrinsic worth of another person and honouring their autonomy, ensuring that one’s actions do not demean or diminish them. The fourth element is knowledge. Hooks argues that genuine love demands understanding and insight into the other person’s feelings, experiences, and needs; without this knowledge, acts of love may be misguided or self-serving. Finally, the fifth element is honesty. She asserts that love cannot exist without truthfulness, transparency, and the courage to communicate openly, even when it is uncomfortable or difficult. Together, these five elements—care, responsibility, respect, knowledge, and honesty—form a framework for love that is intentional, ethical, and transformative, rather than impulsive or dependent on fleeting emotions.

According to bell hooks, love is a conscious choice to nurture one’s own and another’s growth, built on five essential elements: care, responsibility, respect, knowledge, and honesty. Love is not merely a fleeting feeling or desire; it is an intentional practice that requires attentiveness, ethical commitment, recognition of others’ worth, understanding of their needs, and courage to communicate truthfully. When these elements are present, love becomes transformative, ethical, and liberating.

Loving more healthily and humanely requires a conscious and deliberate approach. Love should not be confused with mere desire, fleeting emotions, or possessiveness; rather, it must be practised as an intentional act that nurtures both oneself and others. Hooks emphasises that true love involves active care, in which one attentively supports the emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being of those we love. It also demands responsibility and honesty, meaning that one must act ethically, communicate openly, and take accountability for the effects of one’s actions. Respect and understanding are equally essential, as love flourishes when the autonomy, experiences, and intrinsic worth of others are recognised and honoured. Finally, hooks stresses the importance of self-awareness and cultural awareness, recognising how societal norms can distort love into control or manipulation. In essence, loving healthily is a continuous practice of ethical commitment, attentiveness, respect, honesty, and genuine care that transforms relationships and strengthens human bonds. Love is a conscious choice to care, respect, understand, be honest, and take responsibility for the growth of yourself and others.

Love, according to bell hooks, is not merely an emotion or a fleeting experience, but a conscious and ethical practice that requires intentionality, commitment, and personal growth. She argues that modern society often confuses love with desire, possession, or validation, which leads to dysfunctional relationships and emotional harm. Hooks insists that true love must be understood as an active process that involves care, responsibility, respect, knowledge, and honesty. By practising love in this deliberate and mindful way, individuals can cultivate deeper connections, personal transformation, and a more compassionate, humane society. Ultimately, her work is a call to rethink cultural assumptions about love and to embrace it as a transformative force that demands courage, self-awareness, and ethical integrity.

Dolly Alderton’s Everything I Know About Love (2018, Penguin) is a deeply honest and witty reflection on what love really means as she navigates her twenties. She realises that the romantic ideals she held as a teenager — believing a boyfriend would solve everything — were naïve. Over time, she learns that love is not just about passion and infatuation, but about friendship, self‑worth, and growth. Through her misadventures in dating — bad first dates, awkward breakups, online dating — she comes to see that relationships often test your sense of self. She also values her long-term friendships more than she expected: friends remain her anchor and offer a different, more stable kind of love. Crucially, Alderton recognises that self‑love is essential: it shapes how she sets boundaries, how she lets others treat her, and how she recovers from heartbreak. By her late twenties, she has distilled her experiences into lessons learned — that love changes, that perspective matters, and that being alone doesn’t mean being lonely. She expresses that no one person is responsible for giving you your happiness; instead, we build our own inner lives, and that becomes the foundation for any meaningful love.

Alderton reflects on her experiences of love, friendship, and self-discovery throughout her twenties. She begins by acknowledging her youthful naivety, believing that romantic relationships were the ultimate solution to her problems. Over time, however, she learns that love is far more complex and multifaceted than she had imagined. It is not only about passion or infatuation but also about self-worth, personal growth, and emotional resilience. Alderton shares the chaos of dating, heartbreak, and the trials of modern romance, recognising that these experiences teach her as much about herself as they do about others.

A central insight in her memoir is the value of friendship, particularly female friendship, which provides stability, support, and unconditional love in ways that romantic relationships often cannot. Equally, she stresses the importance of self-love, learning to set boundaries, respect herself, and understand that her happiness cannot be entirely dependent on another person. By the end of her twenties, she has developed a nuanced understanding that love evolves, that perspective is crucial, and that being alone is not synonymous with loneliness. Her overarching lesson is that meaningful love—whether romantic, platonic, or self-directed—requires maturity, reflection, and a recognition of one’s own intrinsic worth.

Love, in Alderton's view, cannot be reduced to romance alone. Alderton emphasises that true love encompasses friendship, self-respect, personal growth, and emotional resilience. She shows that romantic relationships are often imperfect and unpredictable, but the bonds we form with friends and the way we learn to care for ourselves provide a more stable and enduring foundation for happiness. Through her memoir, she encourages readers to embrace vulnerability, reflect on their experiences, and recognise that self-love and strong friendships are not secondary to romance—they are essential. Ultimately, Alderton’s book teaches that meaningful love in all its forms requires maturity, reflection, and the willingness to accept change.

In Love Sense: The Revolutionary New Science of Romantic Relationships (213, Little, Brown Spark), Dr Sue Johnson argues that romantic love is not a random or purely “mystical” phenomenon, but rather a deeply wired, biological process grounded in attachment theory. She explains that the bond between romantic partners functions in much the same way as the bond between a parent and child: we are evolutionarily programmed to seek a safe, secure connection. According to her, when we feel emotionally disconnected from our partner, our brain perceives a threat—almost like a survival risk—because we are hardwired to respond to emotional separation as if our physical safety were in danger.

Johnson also explores the neurochemistry of love, showing how hormones and brain processes contribute to attachment, security, and emotional regulation. She rejects the notion that love is illogical; instead, she sees love as an “ordered and wise recipe for survival.” Moreover, she outlines three stages of romantic relationships, each with its own challenges, and describes how successful couples can navigate these phases by understanding the “intelligence of emotions” and leveraging the “logic of love.” 

To build a safe and warm romantic relationship, Johnson draws on the principles of Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT), which she helped develop. She emphasises the importance of emotional accessibility, responsiveness, and engagement: partners need to feel that they can reach out for comfort, and that their partner will be there to respond. She encourages couples to express vulnerability, to share their fears and longings rather than blame or criticise, because that openness fosters a secure base of trust.

Johnson also highlights that love is not static; relationships are “living, breathing organisms” that evolve. By recognising and reshaping negative interaction cycles (for example, distancing, criticism, or escalation), couples can renew their attachment bond. Furthermore, she shows how secure love yields real benefits—not just emotionally, but physically: feeling securely attached lowers stress hormones and supports psychological wellbeing. 

Love Sense offers both a scientific account of why we love the way we do—grounded in biology and attachment—and a compassionate, practical guide for how to build and repair romantic relationships so that they become secure, lasting, and emotionally nourishing.

Johnson delves deeply into the biological and physiological foundations of romantic love—in particular, how our emotions, brain chemistry, and physical body underlie and shape attachment in adult relationships.

Firstly, Johnson explores emotion as the essence of love. She argues that strong emotion is not chaotic or purely irrational; rather, feelings such as longing, fear, joy, and distress are rooted in evolutionary needs for connection and security. Through the lens of attachment theory, she explains how different attachment styles (secure, anxious, avoidant) influence how people regulate these emotions, and how failures in emotional regulation can lead to negative cycles in relationships.

Secondly, she examines the brain—the neurochemistry and physiology of love. Johnson presents scientific research showing how hormones (such as oxytocin) and neural processes contribute to bonding, trust, and attachment. She shows that love literally reshapes our brain: emotional connection with a partner supports neuroplasticity, helping us form secure bonds and recover from stress. 

Thirdly, Johnson turns to the body, especially in relation to sexuality. She argues that our attachment system affects how we experience physical intimacy: the way we connect emotionally with our partner has a profound influence on sexual expression. When we feel safe and emotionally attuned to our partner, we are more likely to engage in satisfying, trust‑based sexual experiences. Conversely, insecure attachment can lead to distancing, performance anxiety, or a disconnect between emotional and physical closeness. 

Johnson weaves together decades of psychological and neuroscientific research to show that romantic love is not just a “soft” or purely sentimental matter. It is deeply biological and adaptive. She normalises common difficulties in love — such as emotional volatility, misunderstandings, or sexual disconnection — by showing that these arise not from moral failure but from how our brains and bodies are wired. By understanding this “new science of love,” she argues, couples can become more compassionate towards themselves and each other, recognising that their struggles are rooted not simply in personality or willpower, but in deep, biologically grounded needs for attachment.

Johnson argues that romantic love is not a mysterious or random experience, but a deeply biological and adaptive system designed to create secure attachment between partners. She emphasises that our emotional responses, brain chemistry, and behavioural patterns are all geared toward maintaining closeness, safety, and mutual care. By understanding the science behind love, couples can recognise that common difficulties—such as conflict, emotional distance, or sexual disconnect—are natural outcomes of how humans are wired, rather than moral failings or personal inadequacies.

Johnson’s book also carries a practical and hopeful message: love can be repaired, nurtured, and strengthened if partners learn to communicate their vulnerabilities, respond to each other’s emotional needs, and break negative interaction cycles. She shows that secure, emotionally attuned relationships are not just desirable but essential for psychological and physical well-being, and that cultivating this kind of love requires awareness, effort, and emotional courage. Ultimately, Johnson reframes love as a science-informed practice, where understanding our biological and emotional wiring empowers couples to build lasting, warm, and secure romantic bonds.

In A General Theory of Love, written by Thomas Lewis, Fari Amini, and Richard Lannon (2007, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group), the authors argue that love is not merely a poetic sentiment but a biological force rooted in the architecture of the human brain. The authors explain that our emotional lives are shaped by the limbic system, the deep, ancient region of the brain responsible for attachment, resonance, and emotional regulation, which means that love functions as a neurological process that moulds who we are and how we relate to others. They suggest that human beings learn to love, trust, and feel secure not through logic or conscious decision-making, but through “limbic tuning” and “limbic revision,” processes in which close relationships literally recalibrate our emotional patterns over time. The book maintains that healthy love provides regulation, stability, and a sense of inner safety because emotionally attuned partners help soothe one another’s nervous systems, allowing them to grow into more integrated and resilient versions of themselves. In essence, the authors contend that love is a transformative biological phenomenon, one that shapes personality, heals emotional wounds, and determines the emotional climate in which a person can thrive.

According to A General Theory of Love, emotions and soul-level bonds emerge from the workings of the limbic system, the part of the brain that governs attachment, emotional resonance, and the subtle synchronisation between people. The authors argue that when two individuals spend time together in a close, emotionally meaningful relationship, their limbic systems begin to “tune” to one another, creating patterns of shared affect that feel instinctive and deeply familiar. This tuning allows people to sense each other’s moods, soothe one another’s distress, and absorb emotional rhythms without conscious effort, which is why certain relationships feel grounding while others feel destabilising. Over time, this continuous exchange produces “limbic revision,” in which the emotional patterns we learned early in life are gradually reshaped by the presence of someone who offers consistent warmth, safety, and attunement. Bonds, therefore, are not abstract metaphysical connections but biological harmonies created through repeated emotional exchanges that literally alter the structure and functioning of the brain. In the authors’ view, this is how the deepest emotional ties—those we often describe as spiritual or soulful—are formed: through prolonged, attuned contact that rewires us at the most intimate neurological level.

The central message the authors of A General Theory of Love aim to convey is that love is a biological force that shapes human beings at the deepest emotional and neurological levels, and that caring relationships are the only environment in which a person can truly flourish. They argue that modern society often overvalues rationality and individual independence while misunderstanding the fundamental truth that emotional connection is not optional but essential for psychological health. The authors want readers to recognise that the limbic system makes us inherently interdependent, meaning that our well-being depends on the presence of people who offer attunement, warmth, and emotional constancy. They emphasise that meaningful relationships have the power to rewire old emotional patterns, heal long-standing wounds, and provide the regulation that no amount of intellect or self-discipline can supply. Ultimately, their message is that to understand ourselves—and to change ourselves—we must acknowledge the profound biological reality of love and treat emotional connection as a core necessity rather than a sentimental add-on.

The general conclusion of A General Theory of Love is that love is a biological necessity rather than a poetic luxury, because human beings are neurologically designed to need emotional connection in order to grow, heal, and function well. The authors maintain that the limbic system shapes our emotional lives so profoundly that no one can fully regulate themselves without the steady presence of others who are attuned, caring, and consistently available. They conclude that the quality of our relationships determines the architecture of our inner world, influencing our capacity for resilience, stability, empathy, and self-worth. The book argues that emotional isolation harms the mind in ways that intellect cannot compensate for, while healthy, attuned relationships have the power to heal old wounds and reshape the brain in restorative ways. Ultimately, the authors argue that love is both the source of our greatest vulnerabilities and the only environment in which a human being can become whole.

[Part 2]

Bahasa

Guardians of Order or Mirrors of Power? (8)

In contemporary Indonesian constitutional practice, the status of police officers occupying civilian positions has been brought into sharp focus by the Constitutional Court’s recent ruling. The Court, through Decision Number 114/PUU-XXIII/2025, declared that the legal provision which once allowed police officers to slip into civilian posts under the guise of assignments from the National Police Chief was no longer compatible with the Constitution. By striking out that permissive phrase, the Court effectively closed the back door that had long enabled members of the police to hold offices that properly belonged to the civilian domain. As a consequence, any police officer who wishes to assume a purely civilian role must now sever institutional ties with the police, either through formal resignation or retirement.

Although the ruling takes effect immediately, the government has taken a more tempered stance regarding officers who were already embedded in civilian posts before the judgment was handed down. The Minister of Law has emphasised that the ruling does not operate retroactively, meaning that those who had already crossed into civilian territory under the previous legal framework will not be compelled to relinquish their roles. Nevertheless, this accommodation has not silenced public debate, as many commentators argue that genuine institutional reform demands a consistent separation between police authority and civilian administration.

This development has also resurfaced older tensions within Indonesia’s governance architecture. Some policymakers maintain that, under the Civil Service Law, there remain specific civilian posts that may still be lawfully filled by police officers. Others contend that such interpretations risk undermining the very principle that the Court sought to protect: the preservation of a civilian-led bureaucracy free from undue influence by uniformed institutions. The ruling, therefore, has not only altered the immediate legal landscape but has also revived a deeper conversation about democratic norms, political neutrality, and the limits of executive discretion.

The Court’s intervention is best understood as a corrective measure aimed at reinforcing the boundary between the state's coercive apparatus and the administrative machinery that serves the public. It signals a move towards greater clarity in the distribution of authority, ensuring that civilian posts remain genuinely civilian and that police officers, should they wish to pursue bureaucratic careers, must do so through the proper channels. This recalibration is likely to shape debates on reform, accountability, and institutional integrity for years to come.

From a theoretical standpoint, the question of whether police officers may occupy civilian positions hinges on fundamental principles of democratic governance. In most modern political systems, the police are categorised as part of the state’s coercive apparatus—institutions empowered to use force on behalf of the public. Civilian offices, by contrast, are designed to operate through administrative judgment, political accountability, and public transparency rather than coercive authority. For that reason, democratic theory generally insists on a clear separation between uniformed services and civilian administration, so that no single institution accumulates excessive power or blurs the boundaries between enforcement and policymaking.

Allowing active police officers to hold civilian posts risks introducing structural biases into the bureaucracy, as the norms and discipline of law-enforcement organisations do not necessarily align with the ethos expected of civil administration. Moreover, it raises concerns about the potential militarisation of public policy, the erosion of civilian oversight, and the concentration of authority in actors who are not meant to wield political influence. In classical constitutional thought, a civilian role must be insulated from coercive institutions to preserve neutrality, due process, and the balance of power.

Thus, in theoretical terms, the prevailing view is that police officers should not occupy civilian positions unless they have relinquished their status within the police force. Once they step outside the institutional hierarchy of law enforcement—through resignation or retirement—they may legitimately compete for or assume civilian roles like any other citizen. This theoretical framework safeguards the distinction between those who enforce the law and those who design, administer, or interpret it, ensuring that governance remains firmly grounded in civilian authority.

Several authoritative works in political theory, democratic governance, and civil–military relations support the principle that police institutions should remain separate from civilian administrative offices. One of the foundational texts is Samuel P. Huntington’s The Soldier and the State (1957, Harvard University Press), which articulates the concept of “objective civilian control” and argues that coercive institutions must be subordinated to, rather than embedded within, the civilian bureaucracy. Although Huntington writes primarily about the military, his framework is widely applied to policing, as both institutions wield coercive power and require insulation from political administration.

Samuel P. Huntington’s argument in The Soldier and the State rests on a foundational concern: that institutions equipped with the legal authority to use force possess an inherently dangerous concentration of power, and therefore must be subordinated to civilian authority rather than folded into the civilian machinery of governance. His central reasoning is that the military—and by extension any coercive arm of the state, such as the police—operates under a logic of hierarchy, obedience, and disciplined coercion. This organisational culture is essential for their effectiveness in defence and enforcement, yet it is profoundly incompatible with the deliberative, pluralistic, and contested nature of civilian political life.

Huntington maintains that if coercive institutions are allowed to occupy or dominate civilian administrative roles, the balance of democratic power will be distorted. Civilian offices are meant to reflect a diversity of social interests, mediated through public accountability, electoral responsiveness, and transparent decision-making. The military ethic, however, values unity, command, and the suppression of dissent—qualities that, while necessary in security institutions, can be deeply corrosive when transplanted into civilian administration. For Huntington, the risk lies in the gradual erosion of the liberal order: as coercive logic permeates civilian governance, democratic norms weaken, policymaking becomes authoritarian in tone, and the line between state coercion and civilian life begins to blur.

He further argues that civilian supremacy is not only a constitutional requirement but also a functional necessity. The state becomes more stable when the military and police are kept professionally separate, focusing on their core duties without political entanglements. Once coercive institutions are allowed to participate in policymaking or occupy civilian posts, they gain influence over the very authorities meant to regulate them, creating a feedback loop of self-empowerment that jeopardises constitutional checks and balances.

Huntington concludes that the integrity of democratic governance depends upon a clear structural boundary: the civilian sphere must remain civilian, and institutions endowed with coercive power must remain subordinate to it. Only through this separation can liberty, accountability, and political neutrality be safeguarded against the natural tendencies of coercive apparatuses to extend their influence.

In Policing Politics: Security Intelligence and the Liberal Democratic State (1994, Frank Cass/Routledge), Peter Gill analyses the intersection of policing, intelligence, and democratic governance. Although he does not directly discuss the phenomenon of police officers occupying civilian administrative positions, his observations regarding police intelligence are highly relevant to the question. Gill emphasises that the police, particularly their special branches, operate within the coercive sphere of the state, exercising powers that can intrude into political and social life. These powers include surveillance, infiltration of political or social organisations, and the capacity to influence public and political outcomes through controlled information. Because these activities are both secretive and potentially influential, he argues, they must be subject to robust civilian oversight. Without such controls, the police risk acting autonomously in ways that compromise democratic accountability, erode public trust, and politicise institutions that should remain neutral.

From this perspective, one can extrapolate that allowing police officers to occupy civilian roles would carry similar risks. Civilian offices are meant to operate transparently, accountably, and through deliberation and negotiation, rather than through coercive authority. By embedding members of a coercive institution into the civilian administrative structure, there is a danger that their organisational culture—emphasising hierarchy, obedience, and control—could distort decision-making. Policies might gradually reflect enforcement priorities rather than public welfare, and institutional neutrality could be undermined. Gill’s broader argument therefore, implies that the separation of coercive institutions from civilian governance is crucial to preserve democratic norms, prevent abuse of power, and maintain the public’s confidence in political and administrative processes.

David H. Bayley’s Patterns of Policing: A Comparative International Analysis (1985, Rutgers University Press) also stresses that modern democratic policing depends on maintaining police professionalism while preventing the infiltration of law-enforcement officers into civilian political offices. Bayley argues that blurring this boundary undermines transparency and weakens civilian oversight.

Bayley argues that the police should remain separate from politics and civilian administrative roles because their core function is fundamentally different from that of civilian governance. Bayley emphasises that police organisations are designed to enforce the law through coercion, hierarchy, and discipline, whereas civilian offices are intended to operate through negotiation, deliberation, and accountability to the public. Blurring these boundaries risks importing the logic of coercion into the democratic decision-making process, which can compromise transparency, participatory governance, and the principle of neutrality that civilian offices must maintain.

Bayley also notes that when police officers occupy political or administrative positions, there is a danger of role confusion. Officers may develop loyalties, networks, or interests that conflict with their duty to enforce the law impartially. The intrusion of policing culture into civilian governance can create policies that are overly punitive, risk-averse, or security-centred, rather than focused on public service and welfare. In comparative studies, he observes that democracies function most effectively when police are professionalised, clearly separate from political influence, and accountable to civilian oversight mechanisms such as elected officials or independent review bodies.

Bayley argues that keeping police out of politics and civilian administration safeguards both the integrity of law enforcement and the quality of democratic governance. This separation ensures that citizens can trust that policing serves public order without being co-opted into partisan or bureaucratic agendas, while civilian institutions retain their deliberative, participatory, and neutral character.

When police officers occupy civilian positions, according to Bayley, the effect on society can be subtle but profound. He explains that such a fusion blurs the boundary between enforcement and governance, leading citizens to perceive that state power is dominated by coercion rather than deliberation. Policies may increasingly reflect a mindset of control and risk aversion, prioritising discipline, surveillance, and order over welfare, participation, or civic engagement. This can create a climate in which citizens feel monitored or constrained, rather than represented and empowered, gradually eroding trust in both civil institutions and the police themselves.

Bayley also highlights that the professional neutrality of the police is compromised when officers take on civilian administrative roles. Officers may develop loyalties or political interests that skew their enforcement decisions, undermining fairness and equality before the law. The intrusion of policing culture into civilian governance can reinforce social hierarchies, favour certain groups over others, and diminish the legitimacy of democratic processes. Over time, this dynamic risks producing a society in which citizens comply out of fear or deference, rather than through voluntary consent and civic responsibility, weakening both public participation and the accountability of government.

In essence, Bayley warns that allowing police into civilian offices not only threatens institutional integrity but also transforms the relationship between the state and the citizen. Where governance becomes tinged with coercive logic, social trust declines, democratic deliberation weakens, and the public may experience everyday life as being managed more by command than by collective agreement.

The controversy surrounding police officers occupying civilian posts provides a natural bridge into the deeper and more urgent conversation about Polri reform. When members of a law-enforcement institution begin to blur the boundaries between civilian governance and coercive authority, it raises fundamental questions about legitimacy, constitutional propriety, and the healthy functioning of a democratic state. The issue is not merely administrative; it is philosophical. A police force that extends itself into civilian domains risks drifting away from its core mandate of service, protection, and impartiality, and instead begins to resemble an instrument of political influence. This very tension—between what the police ought to be and what they risk becoming—creates the perfect rationale for revisiting the idea of reform. It signals that Indonesia requires not only structural adjustments but also a clear reaffirmation of the principle that policing must serve the public, not power. From here, the path towards comprehensive Polri reform becomes not only logical but necessary, as the nation seeks to rebuild trust, reinforce civilian supremacy, and ensure that law-enforcement officers operate within boundaries that safeguard democracy rather than compromise it.

The journey of police reform in Indonesia is, at its core, a profound negotiation between power, legitimacy, and public trust. It is not merely a bureaucratic exercise or a technical rearrangement of organisational charts; it is a moral project that asks whether the state wishes to rule through fear or govern through the confidence of its citizens. Throughout this study, one theme has surfaced with unwavering clarity: a police force earns its authority not by the weight of its weapons, but by the depth of its integrity.

The evidence we have surveyed paints a complex landscape. Some empirical studies reveal that many Indonesians acknowledge the stabilising role of the police, particularly in maintaining public order and responding to crime. Yet alongside this appreciation lies a persistent undercurrent of scepticism. Doubts remain about independence, integrity, and whether internal reforms are genuinely transformative or merely cosmetic. These tensions suggest that a police institution may be structurally modern, yet culturally tethered to older habits that hinder the growth of legitimacy.

Critics have also pointed out the fragility of reforms conducted in isolation. A transformation designed solely by elite ranks, without meaningful participation from civil society, risks becoming little more than rhetoric—what Indonesians wryly call omon-omon. Genuine reform, in contrast, requires transparency, public oversight, and mechanisms that allow citizens to hold policing accountable not only after failure but during the everyday exercise of authority. The police cannot fully reform themselves without the support of society, and society cannot fully trust a police force that insists on reforming itself alone.

Yet optimism is not misplaced. Several indicators suggest that public trust has experienced measurable improvement over recent years. This gradual rise demonstrates that change—when sincerely implemented—can reshape perceptions and strengthen democratic institutions. Small gains matter, for trust is built not through grand proclamations but through consistent acts of fairness, restraint, and humanity visible in the daily life of the nation.

Practical checklist to judge whether reform is real (what the public should monitor):

• The composition and independence of reform bodies (no conflicts of interest; clear civil-society representation).
• Legal and procedural changes are published openly, with timeframes and implementation plans.
• Transparent reporting of disciplinary actions and outcomes (not just announcements).
• Independent, external audits of budgets, procurement and complaint handling.
• Sustained community engagement and measurable improvements in complaint resolution and reduction of abuses.

If those indicators are met and sustained, public sentiment is likely to move from scepticism to conditional trust; if they are not, most public commentary suggests the reform will be judged as “omon-omon.”

The future of Indonesian policing, therefore, sits upon two intertwined foundations. The first is ethical leadership: commanders who model humility, responsibility, and a genuine commitment to service. The second is participatory governance: citizens who are invited to play an active role in shaping the policies, expectations, and culture of the police institution. When these two forces converge, reform ceases to be a promise and begins to become a lived reality.

In the end, a strong state does not intimidate, but one that is trusted. Indonesia’s next chapter in Polri reform is not simply about creating a more capable police force, but about nurturing a relationship in which citizens feel protected rather than policed. It is a vision in which authority flows from legitimacy, and legitimacy flows from the people. Only then can Indonesia move fully from the logic of a powerful state to the wisdom of a trusted police.

[Part 1]
[Part 7]

Bahasa

Transparency in Democracy (5)

In the theatre of politics, it was Purbaya, the Indonesian Finance Minister, who earned a rare applause for daring to point out the obvious: the press had gone strangely mute, “mingkem,” as though criticism had become an endangered species. His words were not a lament but a challenge, a reminder that silence in journalism is far more dangerous than noise. To criticise power is not treason but duty, and Purbaya’s jab at the media was less about vanity than about accountability. Meanwhile, in a parallel act, the Agriculture Minister, Mr Amran Sulaiman, chose to drag a magazine into court for reporting on rotten rice. Where one minister sought to awaken the watchdogs, the other seemed intent on muzzling them. And so the irony unfolded: Purbaya, unexpectedly cast as the defender of criticism, while Amran played the role of its adversary. The people, ever amused, saw in this contrast the paradox of governance—one hand beckoning the press to speak, the other hand slapping it for doing so.

Back to our topic. 

Oliver’s concept of the Opacity Spiral becomes particularly relevant when we look at cases in Indonesia where public figures, institutions, or corporations allow ambiguity, secrecy, or half-answers to replace straightforward disclosure, eventually triggering an escalating crisis of public distrust. In Oliver’s framework, opacity is never static; it intensifies in a predictable pattern—secrecy, leaks, denials, more leaks, stronger denials, then the appearance of hard evidence that contradicts the earlier denials, culminating in reputational damage or institutional collapse. This sequence does not require malicious intent at the beginning; it often begins simply with a refusal to disclose information clearly, and from that point the spiral begins to feed on itself.

Indonesia offers a wide range of real-world examples that mirror this exact trajectory. One of the clearest parallels is seen in the controversies surrounding large-scale state projects—particularly those where financial details, procurement processes, or operational data remain withheld from the public. When officials offer assurances without documentation, or narrative explanations in place of factual transparency, suspicion naturally grows. In response, leaks emerge—sometimes from insiders, sometimes from investigative journalists—and those leaks are met with denials or attempts to delegitimise the sources rather than addressing the substance of the information. As the spiral continues, new evidence surfaces, often in the form of audit reports, whistleblower testimonies, or leaked correspondence, and at that point the institutions involved struggle to regain credibility because their earlier denials have already undermined public trust.

A particularly concrete example that mirrors Oliver’s Opacity Spiral almost step-for-step is the unfolding controversies around major infrastructure projects whose budgets expand without clear explanation. When contract documents, feasibility studies, or loan agreements remain hidden, the lack of clarity invites speculation. Officials respond by insisting everything is “under control” while declining to release the underlying data. Journalists dig deeper. Further leaks occur. Denials intensify. Then, at a later stage, audit results or parliamentary hearings reveal inconsistencies between the official narrative and the factual record, leading to widespread criticism, political pressure, and—at times—legal consequences. The pattern becomes so predictable that it feels like a script, exactly as Oliver describes in his chapter.

Oliver’s idea becomes even more relevant in the era of digital whistleblowing, because once the public senses opacity, the online ecosystem accelerates the spiral. Speculation moves faster, scrutiny becomes sharper, and denial becomes a less effective defensive strategy. When leaders or institutions choose not to reveal information that could resolve doubts, they unwittingly fuel the narrative that something is being hidden, even when the truth may be far more mundane. In that sense, Indonesia provides a vibrant and sometimes dramatic stage for the Opacity Spiral to unfold, because public expectations of transparency have grown far faster than institutional habits of disclosure.

The central message that Richard W. Oliver conveys in What Is Transparency? is that transparency is not merely an ethical accessory but a fundamental operating principle required for trust, stability, and long-term legitimacy in any modern institution. Oliver argues that societies and organisations thrive when information flows freely, when decisions are visible rather than concealed, and when those in power choose openness over secrecy as a strategic commitment rather than a reluctant concession. His work stresses that opacity always carries a predictable cost: secrecy invites suspicion, suspicion sparks investigation, and investigation inevitably uncovers truths that are far more damaging when revealed under pressure than when disclosed voluntarily.

Oliver’s work ultimately suggests that transparency is less about moral virtue and more about institutional survival. He presents it as a pragmatic framework for navigating a world in which information travels instantly, collective memory is digital, and concealment is nearly impossible to maintain. In essence, Oliver urges leaders, governments, and corporations to adopt transparency not because it makes them appear righteous, but because failing to do so guarantees their entrapment in the destructive cycles of denial, exposure, and public backlash. His message is that openness is the only sustainable strategy in an age where everything hidden eventually becomes known.

Open Government, the 2010 volume edited by Daniel Lathrop and Laurel Ruma, published by O’Reilly Media, presents a sweeping examination of how transparency, data accessibility, and participatory governance can reshape the relationship between citizens and the state. It argues that governments, when they embrace openness not merely as a slogan but as a structural commitment, can empower the public to scrutinise decisions, improve public services, and co-create better policy outcomes. The editors gather contributions from technologists, civil servants, journalists, and civic activists, forming a mosaic of perspectives that emphasise not only the promise of open data but also the political and institutional hurdles that threaten its implementation. The book also frames transparency as a cultural shift rather than a technical upgrade, insisting that openness succeeds only when bureaucracies adopt new habits of accountability and when citizens consistently demand clarity from those who govern them. Despite being published in 2010, its arguments remain strikingly relevant in an era marked by digital distrust, algorithmic opacity, and governments that publicly praise openness while quietly retreating from it.

According to Open Government, transparency is not merely about uploading reports online or releasing official documents; it represents a profound cultural shift that requires new habits and attitudes from both government officials and citizens. The book emphasises that an open government is prepared to face questions, criticism, and public pressure consistently, rather than selectively during high-profile moments. Transparency becomes a part of organisational culture when, firstly, bureaucrats routinely consider the possibility that their decisions will be scrutinised by the public; secondly, citizens actively engage with information to demand accountability, rather than passively consuming reports; and thirdly, institutions develop systematic practices for regularly disseminating clear and accessible information.

The core argument is that without a change in mindset and behaviour—on the part of both officials and the public—open data remains little more than “digital decoration” that does not influence behaviour or policy outcomes. Transparency succeeds only when it is embedded into the daily workings of government and becomes an ingrained habit, from top leadership to frontline staff, and from ordinary citizens to journalists and civic activists.

“Targeted Transparency” refers to a deliberate and strategic approach to openness in which information is released with specific goals in mind, rather than publishing data indiscriminately. The concept emphasises that transparency is most effective when it is purposeful—aimed at addressing particular problems, informing certain audiences, or improving specific aspects of governance. For example, targeted transparency might focus on revealing government spending in sectors prone to corruption, performance metrics in public services that citizens use daily, or regulatory decisions that directly impact communities. The book argues that by focusing transparency efforts on carefully chosen areas, governments can increase accountability, enable informed civic participation, and maximise the practical impact of the data provided. Targeted transparency also recognises that releasing all possible data without context or guidance can overwhelm citizens, mislead the public, or produce minimal real-world benefit. 

The book argues that transparency is most effective when it is strategic, context-sensitive, and aligned with both public needs and governmental capacity. It is not presented as a universal solution that automatically improves governance; instead, its usefulness depends on factors such as the quality of the data being released, the ability of citizens to interpret and act on that information, and the institutional willingness to respond to scrutiny. The chapter illustrates that transparency is particularly valuable in circumstances where public oversight can prevent corruption, improve service delivery, or guide policy decisions. However, it also cautions that transparency can be counterproductive if data is misinterpreted, selectively presented, or deployed as a mere symbolic gesture, emphasising that the cultural and institutional context is critical for its success.

The editors argue that transparency is not just about releasing information; it is also about enabling the public to observe, interpret, and respond to government behaviour. When citizens are empowered to act as the “eyes and ears” of the state, they can help detect inefficiencies, identify corruption, and suggest improvements based on their experiences and local knowledge. This citizen engagement transforms transparency from a passive disclosure of data into an interactive process of accountability. Importantly, the authors note that for this system to work effectively, citizens need access to clear, understandable data and channels for communicating their observations to authorities who are willing to listen and act.

Civic engagement is most effective when governments provide not only access to information but also tools, platforms, and opportunities that make it easy for citizens to contribute. This includes user-friendly digital portals, open data sets presented in understandable formats, and structured channels for feedback and collaboration. The authors stress that engagement is not simply about soliciting opinions, but about creating mechanisms where citizen input can genuinely influence decision-making, policy formation, and public service improvement. Education and outreach are also important, noting that citizens must understand both their rights and how they can participate to have an impact. Ultimately, the book frames civic engagement as a two-way process: governments must be proactive in enabling participation, and citizens must be motivated and equipped to use these opportunities effectively.

Platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and blogs allow citizens to share information, highlight government actions, and mobilise collective oversight at unprecedented speed and scale. Social media enables real-time scrutiny of public decisions, creating pressure on officials to respond promptly and responsibly. The authors note that it also empowers journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens to collaborate, amplify voices, and expose wrongdoing that might otherwise remain hidden. However, the chapter also cautions that social media can spread misinformation and that not all citizens have equal access or digital literacy, meaning that transparency efforts must be complemented by education, fact-checking, and thoughtful engagement strategies. Social media is a powerful tool in the fight for transparency, but one that requires careful management to be truly effective.

Openness is not merely a technical or procedural matter, but a cultural and participatory practice that requires commitment from both government and citizens. Transparency works best when it is purposeful, strategic, and embedded into the everyday operations of governance. Simply releasing data is not enough; governments must ensure that the information is clear, accessible, and actionable. Meanwhile, citizens must be empowered and motivated to use that information to hold officials accountable, contribute to policy discussions, and improve public services. Transparency as a two-way process: it succeeds when officials embrace accountability as a habit, and when citizens engage actively, critically, and consistently. Transparency is a tool for building trust, enhancing civic participation, and improving governance, but only if it becomes part of a broader culture of openness rather than a superficial or symbolic gesture.

Transparency is more than a buzzword; it is the backbone of modern governance and civic trust. In an age where information travels faster than ever and public scrutiny is constant, transparency serves as both shield and mirror: it protects governments from suspicion while reflecting their actions honestly to the citizenry. When institutions embrace openness sincerely, they invite dialogue, collaboration, and accountability, creating an ecosystem in which decision-making is informed, visible, and justifiable. Transparency, therefore, is not merely about publishing data, but about cultivating habits of integrity and responsiveness that permeate every layer of governance.

However, transparency is not automatic or universally beneficial. Its impact depends heavily on context, clarity, and accessibility. Flooding the public with raw data without proper explanation can overwhelm citizens and even backfire, leading to confusion or misinterpretation. Similarly, selective disclosure—revealing only favourable information—erodes trust rather than building it. True transparency demands deliberate effort: governments must tailor their disclosures to meaningful metrics, present information in digestible forms, and maintain consistent channels for citizen engagement. This strategic approach ensures that transparency becomes a tool for problem-solving rather than an empty gesture of performance.

Another crucial aspect of transparency is citizen empowerment. Openness achieves its full potential only when citizens are equipped to observe, interpret, and act on information. This means providing not only access but also education, platforms for engagement, and mechanisms for feedback. When citizens function as the “eyes and ears” of the state, they become partners in governance rather than mere recipients of policies. This symbiotic relationship enhances oversight, reduces corruption, and fosters innovative solutions driven by real-world experiences and local knowledge. Transparency, therefore, is inseparable from participation; it flourishes where citizens are motivated, capable, and supported to play an active role.

Moreover, transparency is inherently cultural. It cannot be imposed solely through regulations or technological fixes; it must be embedded in the daily operations, values, and mindset of institutions. Bureaucracies that treat transparency as a one-off project or a compliance exercise risk failure, as do citizens who engage only sporadically. Real transparency requires continuous commitment from leaders, staff, and the public alike, cultivating an environment in which openness is habitual rather than exceptional. When transparency becomes a shared expectation and standard practice, accountability, trust, and legitimacy are no longer aspirational ideals but living realities that shape governance in tangible ways.

In conclusion, transparency is both a practical instrument and a moral imperative. It bridges the gap between government and citizen, transforms data into knowledge, and accountability into action. Yet, its success relies not merely on the availability of information, but on cultivating trust, civic literacy, and an enduring culture of openness. Governments and citizens together must embrace transparency as a daily practice, a shared responsibility, and a foundation for better governance. Only then can transparency truly fulfil its promise: to empower citizens, enhance decision-making, and forge a public sphere in which trust, fairness, and clarity are not privileges but norms.

[Part 1]
[Part 4]

Bahasa

Transparency in Democracy (4)

The term Y2K is a shorthand reference for the Year 2000 Problem, a widespread computer bug that captivated and concerned the world in the run-up to the new millennium. The crisis originated from a programming shortcut used in computer systems dating back to the earliest days of computing. To save on costly electronic memory, which was very expensive at the time, programmers habitually represented the year using only two digits—for instance, 1978 was stored simply as '78'.

The core issue was the inability of these systems to correctly interpret the year '00'. On the stroke of midnight entering 1 January 2000, computers programmed in this manner would likely interpret '00' as the year 1900 instead of 2000, causing calculation errors, or, worse, a catastrophic system failure. This programming oversight threatened every aspect of global infrastructure, from banking records, power grids, and air traffic control systems, to hospitals and government agencies.

The worldwide panic and media frenzy in the late 1990s were immense, with many fearing a total collapse of modern society. Governments and businesses spent billions of pounds globally on a massive, frantic effort to audit and correct trillions of lines of code. Ultimately, thanks to this extraordinary, unprecedented global effort, the transition to the year 2000 passed with only minor, isolated incidents. While often dismissed as a non-event, the successful transition was, in fact, an immense achievement of global technological cooperation.

The Year 2000 Problem fundamentally stemmed from a catastrophic failure of transparency within the foundational architecture of global computing. The root cause was a seemingly innocuous programming convention—the two-digit year code—which was adopted in the early days of computing purely as a cost-saving measure to conserve expensive memory. This practice amounted to a hidden assumption: a non-transparent rule embedded deep within the system's logic that tacitly presumed all operations would occur within the 20th century. Because this critical assumption was not openly documented or made transparent through clear four-digit year coding, it accumulated silently over decades, creating a systemic vulnerability that was virtually impossible to detect through standard maintenance procedures.

Consequently, when the impending date change forced the world to seek clarity, the sudden need for transparency triggered a global crisis. Governments and corporations were compelled to expend billions of pounds on a massive, frantic audit effort, essentially paying a colossal fee to re-establish transparency within their own infrastructure. They had to painstakingly unearth and verify trillions of lines of opaque, poorly documented legacy code to identify and correct the underlying fault. This unprecedented exercise highlighted that complexity, coupled with a lack of openness and clear documentation, inevitably leads to fragility and enormous, unpredictable costs.

Ultimately, the successful resolution of the Y2K scare served as a dramatic, global demonstration that opacity is a threat multiplier. The crisis drove home the absolute necessity of transparent coding standards, detailed system documentation, and rigorous, auditable processes, establishing a lasting legacy that redefined best practices in system engineering and risk management worldwide.

There is a palpable resistance evident among numerous individuals and corporate entities who strongly object to the mandate for increased openness. One can readily discern this reluctance not only through their direct actions but also by carefully interpreting the subtle nuances underlying their public statements. The prevailing sentiment driving this opposition is the conviction that information equates to authority, leading them to hoard knowledge and vehemently refuse to relinquish any perceived strategic advantage. While some choose to fiercely battle this global trend, often leading to their eventual undoing or destruction, others reluctantly pursue various forms of compromise. For instance, smaller publicly listed companies opt to convert into private firms specifically to evade the onerous financial burdens associated with regulatory compliance. Meanwhile, another faction vociferously argues that excessive disclosure inevitably poses a significant threat to their capacity to safeguard commercially sensitive and competitive intelligence.

In Richard W. Oliver’s explanation, the lessons of history are unmistakable: transparency is no longer a sometime thing. It’s here to stay. And like the sailors in Edgar Allen Poe’s maelstrom (those caught in the vortex of opacity), the ride can be deadly. Transparency is even creating its own truths.

The tale is centrally concerned with the terrifying ordeal of three Norwegian seamen—all brothers—whose fishing vessel is unexpectedly caught and drawn into the colossal tidal vortex known as the Moskenstraumen, or Maelström, off the Lofoten Islands. The story is recounted entirely by the elderly survivor, whose extreme physical decay—manifested by his snow-white hair and seemingly ancient age—is solely attributable to the psychological trauma of the event, despite his being relatively young in years.

This narrator is initially paralysed by the overwhelming terror of the disaster, but eventually manages to suppress his primal fear through an unexpected intellectual curiosity, allowing him to rationally observe the mechanics of the devastating whirlpool. He notices a critical physical principle: smaller, cylindrical objects descend into the vortex significantly slower than larger, bulkier bodies. Armed with this astute observation, he formulates a desperate, calculated gamble for survival, courageously strapping himself to a discarded water cask and intentionally throwing himself overboard, away from the doomed ship. His astonishing presence of mind and calculated application of reason—a hallmark theme in Poe's work—ultimately saves him, as the cask is eventually cast free from the diminished whirlpool during the change of tide.

The fate of his two brothers serves as a tragic contrast to his own calculated survival. The eldest brother, consumed by profound despair, refused to heed the narrator's strategic advice, opting instead to cling hopelessly to the sinking vessel. This act of fatalistic resignation meant he perished along with the boat as it was sucked into the abyss. Meanwhile, the youngest brother had already been swept away by the preceding hurricane, vanishing into the churning sea before the vessel ever reached the Maelström's fatal centre. Thus, the three seamen collectively embody the different human responses to inevitable catastrophe: the swiftness of unavoidable doom, the paralysis of despair, and the unique, analytical resilience that allows one man to escape the clutches of death.

Oliver presents the “Ten Truths of Transparency” based on the key principles and essence of the concept of Transparency. The fundamental truth holds that transparency should never be viewed as an objective in itself, but rather serves as the essential means to achieve the greater goal of accountability. It must be understood that true transparency concerns itself entirely with the absence of concealment, actively working to remove the deliberate or accidental opacity that might shroud institutional operations. Furthermore, the requirement for an organisation to disclose its workings is intrinsically linked to the existence of a valid public interest; a genuine 'need to know' must be established to justify the revelation of information.

Crucially, implementing robust transparency systems shifts the entire dynamic of disclosure, establishing a presumption of openness where the burden of justifying secrecy now falls squarely upon the holders of information, rather than the public demanding access. This openness is a cornerstone of responsible governance, as ethical administration necessitates adherence to a triple standard of transparency, accountability, and demonstrable fairness in all proceedings. Conversely, it is widely accepted that the deliberate absence of transparency invariably obstructs effective communication, leading directly to flawed decision-making and consequential systemic underperformance.

Beyond simply mitigating risk, transparency must be recognised as a strategic tool that can be actively leveraged to establish a competitive advantage within the global marketplace, fostering confidence and attracting investment. Achieving this requires the cultivation of an accessible and open style of leadership, the kind of visibility that nurtures deep employee loyalty and drives genuine organisational productivity. Moreover, to be credible, transparency must be systematic and data-driven, demanding a persistent, committed process for collecting, managing, and publicly reporting key performance metrics. Ultimately, transparency should be viewed and implemented as a comprehensive organisational code of conduct, explicitly guiding every action to ensure predictable, clear, and universally understandable operational standards.

Opacity, the opposite of transparency, is defined as the state of being hard to understand, not clear or lucid. When information is not clear, it’s not trusted. When information is hidden, it’s natural to believe there’s truly something to hide.

Over and over, individuals and organisations get trapped in opacity’s predictable pattern. A person or organisation commits an act in secret. Word leaks out. Denials follow. More information leaks out. Denials continue. Irrefutable evidence comes out. Eventually, the organisation or individual is damaged or destroyed by the unrelenting spiral of media exposure, public pressure, and, many times, litigation.

Oliver’s concept of the Opacity Spiral describes a deeply destructive behavioural pattern, wherein an initial, often minor, act of concealment sets in motion a self-perpetuating cycle of further secrecy, leading inexorably to the institution's eventual downfall. The fundamental genesis of this pernicious spiral lies in the deep-seated fear held by leadership to confront harsh realities or admit to errors, driven primarily by self-interest and a powerful defensive instinct to preserve their personal authority and the organisation’s external image. They operate under the misguided and dangerous conviction that honesty will inevitably result in damaging consequences, such as plummeting stock prices or legal action, thereby justifying their initial act of non-disclosure, which Oliver terms Defiance.

This destructive spiral truly begins to manifest when the initial concealment is inevitably exposed to external forces, such as vigilant regulators, the media, or internal whistleblowers. Instead of seizing the opportunity for corrective disclosure, the organisation typically responds with a desperate, intensified form of Denial, escalating their original concealment by systematically manipulating data, employing intimidation tactics against staff, or orchestrating calculated attempts to divert public attention. As the organisation descends further into this systemic opacity, it rapidly approaches the final and devastating stage, referred to as Destruction. The consequence of this terminal phase is multifaceted and catastrophic: it begins with an irreparable loss of trust among the public and key stakeholders, which fatally cripples the brand's perceived value; the systemic nature of the deceit then attracts mandatory regulatory and legal intervention, forcing a painful, damaging public exposure through audits, massive fines, or criminal proceedings; ultimately, this collective failure results in the total annihilation of the organisation’s intrinsic value, often concluding with bankruptcy or hostile acquisition, thereby demonstrating that the decision to conceal merely accelerates and exacerbates an otherwise manageable collapse.

The “Opacity Spiral” refers to the recurring and almost mechanical pattern that unfolds whenever individuals or organisations choose secrecy over openness. It begins with a concealed action—something done quietly, away from scrutiny—often with the hope that no one will ever notice. Yet secrecy is rarely airtight, and before long, fragments of information begin to seep into the public sphere. Instead of responding with honesty, the organisation issues denials, assuming that firmness will compensate for the lack of clarity. But more details inevitably emerge, contradicting the denials and intensifying suspicion. The institution doubles down, denying again, as though repetition might make the public forget. Eventually, irrefutable evidence surfaces, destroying any façade that might have been maintained. By the time the truth is undeniable, the damage is far greater than if transparency had prevailed from the start. The spiral—fuelled by media exposure, public outrage, and legal consequences—captures how opacity does not merely hide the problem but actively worsens it, tightening the noose with every turn. 

The Opacity Spiral refers to the predictable and destructive cycle that occurs when individuals or organisations choose secrecy over clarity, creating a chain of events that gradually erodes trust and credibility. It begins innocently—or sometimes intentionally—with an action conducted away from public view. At first, this hidden act might seem safe, protected by silence or controlled information. Yet opacity rarely remains contained, and the first crack usually appears when a small piece of information leaks, often through rumours, insiders, or investigative curiosity.

Once the leak surfaces, those involved commonly respond with denial, believing that a firm rejection will silence the chatter. Instead, the denial intensifies scrutiny, prompting more leaks to emerge, sometimes from people who feel morally obliged to reveal the truth, and sometimes from those who simply refuse to be complicit. As each new disclosure contradicts the previous denial, the public begins to assume that the secrecy itself signals wrongdoing.

Eventually, irrefutable evidence emerges, and the narrative collapses. By this stage, the damage is no longer limited to the initial act but extends to the denials, the attempts at concealment, and the erosion of integrity. The media amplifies the story, public pressure hardens, and litigation often follows. What began as a single secret becomes a spiralling crisis that can destroy reputations, institutions, or careers. In essence, the Opacity Spiral demonstrates how concealment breeds suspicion, suspicion fuels exposure, and exposure becomes a force that the original actors can no longer control.

 In Indonesia, the controversy surrounding President Joko Widodo’s diploma becomes less about the document itself and more about the escalating distrust that emerges when clarity is not offered at the moment people expect it. The Opacity Spiral begins when something that could be explained simply is instead handled through evasive statements, defensive narratives, or actions that appear disproportionate to the original question. As the public observes denials, counter-accusations, and legal manoeuvres, the lack of direct transparency becomes the real centre of gravity, feeding suspicion regardless of the underlying truth.

Within this dynamic, the focus shifts from the authenticity of a diploma to the behaviour of the institutions involved, as each new development tightens the spiral: leaks spark reactions, reactions spark more speculation, and the absence of clear evidence allows the narrative to grow beyond the facts. In such an atmosphere, even legitimate legal processes may look like attempts to suppress inquiry rather than settle it. Opacity—whether intentional or accidental—tends to produce reputational damage not because wrongdoing is proven, but because the public begins to assume that silence or avoidance is itself an admission. Thus, the case becomes an illustration of how powerful the Opacity Spiral can be: once it gathers momentum, it consumes not only the original issue but the credibility of those attempting to control the story.

Most transparency scandals, both historic and recent, follow this pattern. The spiral applies to politics (Watergate, Iran-Contra affair, Clinton sex scandal), financial markets (S&L crisis, BCCI, Enron, WorldCom), nonprofits (the Catholic church, Feed the Children, United Way) and many other cover-ups involving the misuse of funds or résumé inflation.

Once an organisation enters the spiral, the disruptive occur- rence is usually just the tip of the iceberg. Mounting information leaks regarding pedophile priests in Boston eventually led to evidence of a widespread cover-up in the Catholic church. A whistleblower’s accusations at one tobacco company led to evidence that the whole industry had conspired to squelch findings of nicotine addiction. For both, the legal and public perception cost was enormous. Politicians and TV ministers were brought down by sex scandals they first tried to deny. Charities saw an exodus of donors after mounting evidence of misappropriation emerged. Truth has a habit of emerging just when it can do the most damage. The wider the spiral (the gulf between truth and confession), the worse the outcome. The longer the spiral (in time and events), the harsher the public punishment will be.

Access to information is crucial for transparency, but for Oliver, transparency isn't just about "opening up the data"; it's about the process by which that information can be digested, understood, and examined—not just accessible, but also analysed and acted upon. So, simply having access to information isn't enough if no one is taking it seriously and there's no clear way for them to understand what's being revealed.

According to Oliver, watchdogs are the independent actors who monitor institutions, organisations, and public figures in order to ensure that transparency is upheld. They may come in the form of journalists, auditors, regulatory agencies, advocacy groups, academics, or even ordinary citizens armed with digital tools. Oliver stresses that watchdogs do not merely observe; they actively scrutinise actions, decisions, and patterns of behaviour to expose inconsistencies, hidden motives, or abuses of power that would otherwise remain concealed.

He argues that watchdogs are essential precisely because opacity naturally grows within any institution that is left unchecked. Power drifts towards secrecy, and without watchdogs constantly prodding, questioning, and revealing, the public’s ability to hold leaders accountable rapidly erodes. For Oliver, the most effective watchdogs are those who are independent, relentless, and equipped with both access to information and the courage to interpret it truthfully.

Oliver presents watchdogs as the unofficial guardians of public trust. Their presence creates an environment where organisations know that dishonesty or concealment is likely to be exposed, thereby encouraging more ethical behaviour and preventing abuse before it metastasises into a scandal.

Oliver identifies watchdogs as one of the key agents in making transparency meaningful. For Oliver, transparency isn’t just about opening up channels of information—there must also be active observers who use that information to hold organisations accountable. These “watchdogs” can take several forms, including journalists, civil society groups, regulatory bodies, or even internal compliance teams. Their role is not passive: they scrutinise disclosures, question decisions, and expose inconsistency or misconduct.

Oliver argues that without watchdogs, disclosure risks becoming symbolic—an organisation might release reports and data, but if no one is watching, then transparency loses much of its power. Watchdogs interpret, analyse, and publicise what they find, turning raw information into insight that stakeholders can act on. These observers thus serve as intermediaries between the organisation that discloses and the broader public, translating complex or technical details into accessible knowledge.

Moreover, watchdogs reinforce the legitimacy of transparency itself. When they act, they validate that transparency is not just a marketing claim but a practical tool for oversight. Their vigilance helps prevent the “opacity spiral”—a situation where defiance, concealment, or partial disclosure erodes trust. By keeping watch, these agents help maintain a dynamic balance: organisations are pressured to remain open, and stakeholders remain informed and empowered.

Oliver views watchdogs as indispensable: they are the ones who watch the watchers, ensure that openness is real, and give transparency its bite.

In situations where wrongdoing, misconduct, or unethical behaviour is hidden from external observers and cannot be effectively detected or addressed through normal organisational oversight, the role of a whistleblower becomes crucial. Whistleblowers are particularly needed when internal systems fail to enforce accountability, when leaders are complicit, or when transparency mechanisms are weak or non-existent. They step in to reveal information that is critical for protecting stakeholders, maintaining ethical standards, or preventing harm to the public. In essence, whistleblowers act as a safeguard when secrecy or opacity within an organisation threatens trust, safety, or integrity.

Oliver uses the term “institutionalised whistleblowers” to refer to mechanisms, positions, or formal structures within organisations that are designed to detect and report wrongdoing. Unlike informal or ad hoc whistleblowers, who act individually and often at personal risk, institutionalised whistleblowers are supported by policies, procedures, or dedicated roles that encourage reporting while offering some protection against retaliation. These structures make it easier for organisations to monitor ethical compliance, maintain accountability, and reinforce transparency as a systematic part of their operations. Oliver sees institutionalised whistleblowers as a way to embed the function of oversight into the organisation itself, reducing reliance on spontaneous acts of courage and increasing the consistency of monitoring.

A free press is an essential element of transparency. When Oliver speaks of the “Transparency Police,” he is not referring to an actual law-enforcement body, nor to officers who march into organisations with badges and torches. Instead, he uses the term as a metaphor for the relentless social forces that now compel individuals, corporations, and governments to behave transparently, whether they wish to or not. These “police” consist of journalists, whistle-blowers, auditors, activists, and even ordinary citizens armed with smartphones and social media accounts. They are not coordinated, but they are united by a shared instinct: to expose what is concealed, to question official narratives, and to demand clarity where institutions would prefer ambiguity.

Oliver argues that the mere existence of these informal enforcers has changed the behavioural landscape. People in power can no longer assume that secrecy will remain intact, because the “Transparency Police” are always watching, always recording, and always ready to broadcast what they find. Their intervention is often unpredictable, sometimes messy, and occasionally unjust—but it is undeniably transformative. 

Oliver illustrates the impact of transparency through examples of countries like South Korea, Thailand, Chile, and the Czech Republic, where democratic institutions and active public oversight have helped strengthen trust and societal prosperity. The “Transparency Police,” therefore, exist not as uniformed officers but as a network of engaged citizens and civil society actors who insist that power is exercised openly.

In this sense, the “Transparency Police” act as society’s immune system, reacting sharply to anything that resembles deception or opacity, and forcing institutions into a more accountable relationship with the public. They are the antidote to the Opacity Spiral: the moment concealment begins, these invisible police activate and apply pressure until the truth breaks through.

[Part 5]
[Part 3]

Bahasa