When Bagong Learned from Semar's Wisdom (6)

"Ramanda, I noticed that in general the hostages held by HAMAS are treated well. Whether it aligns with Islamic teachings regarding captives or not, please tell me, how do Islamic teachings specifically address the treatment of hostages?" Bagong asked Semar.

Semar replied, "Islamic teachings place a strong emphasis on the humane treatment of captives, including hostages, rooted in principles of mercy, justice, and compassion. While 'hostages' in a modern context may not align exactly with how captives were viewed historically in Islamic law, the general guidance is applicable.

The first principle is kindness and humane treatment. The Qur'an encourages treating captives with kindness, even in difficult circumstances.

وَيُطْعِمُوْنَ الطَّعَامَ عَلٰى حُبِّهٖ مِسْكِيْنًا وَّيَتِيْمًا وَّاَسِيْرًا اِنَّمَا نُطْعِمُكُمْ لِوَجْهِ اللّٰهِ لَا نُرِيْدُ مِنْكُمْ جَزَاۤءً وَّلَا شُكُوْرًا

'And they give food in spite of love for it [the meaning here may also be 'out of love for Him,' i.e., Allah Subḥānahu wa taʿālā)] to the needy, the orphan, and the captive, [Saying], "We feed you only for the face [i.e., approval] of Allah. We wish not from you reward or gratitude.' [QS. Al-Insan (76):8-9]

The surah encourages feeding and showing kindness to captives.

Also,

فَاِذَا لَقِيْتُمُ الَّذِيْنَ كَفَرُوْا فَضَرْبَ الرِّقَابِۗ حَتّٰٓى اِذَآ اَثْخَنْتُمُوْهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَۖ فَاِمَّا مَنًّاۢ بَعْدُ وَاِمَّا فِدَاۤءً حَتّٰى تَضَعَ الْحَرْبُ اَوْزَارَهَا ەۛ ذٰلِكَ ۛ وَلَوْ يَشَاۤءُ اللّٰهُ لَانْتَصَرَ مِنْهُمْ وَلٰكِنْ لِّيَبْلُوَا۟ بَعْضَكُمْ بِبَعْضٍۗ وَالَّذِيْنَ قُتِلُوْا فِيْ سَبِيْلِ اللّٰهِ فَلَنْ يُّضِلَّ اَعْمَالَهُمْ

'So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure [their] bonds (i.e., take those remaining as captives), and either [confer] favour (i.e., release them without ransom) afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens (i.e., its armour, machinery, etc., meaning 'until the war is over'). That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allāh - never will He waste their deeds.' [QS. Muhammad (47):4]

This surah commands either freeing captives or ransoming them after the end of hostilities. The phrase 'strike their necks' refers to defeating the enemy in direct combat by targeting a critical part of the body to ensure victory. The human neck contains critical structures, including nerves, blood vessels, and organs, where severe injury can lead to fatal consequences. The vagus nerve controls vital autonomic functions, such as heart rate, digestion, and respiratory rate. Severing the vagus nerve can disrupt these functions, leading to irregular heartbeat, difficulty breathing, and possibly death. Phrenic Nerve originates from the cervical spine and controls the diaphragm, the primary muscle involved in breathing. Injury to the phrenic nerve can paralyze the diaphragm, causing respiratory failure. The cervical Plexus network of nerves supplies sensation and motor control to parts of the neck, shoulders, and diaphragm. Severe damage can impair breathing (due to the involvement of the phrenic nerve) and sensation or movement in nearby areas.

The sympathetic chain of nerves regulates autonomic functions, including blood pressure and pupil dilation. Injuries can cause Horner's syndrome (ptosis, miosis, and anhidrosis) and vascular instability.

Carotid Arteries supply blood to the brain. Severing a carotid artery leads to massive blood loss and oxygen deprivation to the brain, causing death within minutes.

Jugular veins drain blood from the brain. Severing a jugular vein results in significant blood loss and potential air embolism, which can be fatal. Damage to the trachea can obstruct the airway, leading to suffocation. Injury to the oesophagus may not be immediately fatal but can cause severe complications if untreated.

The cervical spinal cord passes through the neck, controlling essential motor and sensory functions.

Severe damage, particularly to the upper cervical spinal cord, can cause paralysis or death by stopping respiratory function.

The neck is a highly vulnerable region of the human body because it houses numerous critical structures that support life. Injuries to specific nerves, blood vessels, or the spinal cord can result in fatal outcomes, often within minutes. If certain nerves in the neck are cut or severely damaged, death can occur quickly due to their role in controlling vital functions. The most critical nerves in the neck could hasten death if severed.

The instruction to 'strike their necks' reflects the standard military tactics of the time, as swords were the primary weapons used in battle. The instruction is specific to the battlefield and not applicable to non-combatants or captives. The goal is to subdue the enemy forces, leading to the cessation of hostilities. Once the enemy is subdued, the verse advises humane treatment, such as binding captives and offering options for their release (e.g., through ransom or an act of grace). The verse does not endorse unnecessary violence or prolonged suffering. It aligns with the overarching Islamic principles of minimizing harm during war.

Some scholars interpret it as a metaphor for overwhelming the enemy decisively in battle. The verse immediately transitions to the humane treatment of captives, offering options to release them as an act of mercy or ransom them. Imam Al-Qurtubie explains that this phrase refers to legitimate warfare and signifies the gravity of battle. After combat, it requires showing mercy to captives. Ibn Kathir notes that the verse sets limits on warfare and promotes ethical conduct by mandating that captives be treated humanely after hostilities. The phrase 'strike their necks' addresses combat during a lawful and just war, particularly when Muslims were defending themselves against aggression during the early battles in the Prophet’s (ﷺ) time. It emphasizes battlefield engagement with clarity and decisiveness. The phrase is not a general directive to harm non-Muslims but applies specifically to armed combatants in the heat of battle.

So, the phrase 'strike their necks' is a directive specific to lawful warfare against aggressors in a battlefield context. It is not a call for indiscriminate violence and must be understood within the broader Islamic principles of justice, ethics, and compassion. After combat, Islam mandates humane treatment of captives, emphasizing mercy and reconciliation. Islam forbids mutilation, torture, or unnecessary suffering of enemies, even during combat.

Islam recognizes the reality of warfare but establishes strict guidelines to ensure it is conducted ethically. The primary goal of war in Islam is not conquest or aggression but to establish justice, protect religious freedom, and defend against oppression. Muslims are commanded to engage in warfare only in self-defence or against oppression, and they are forbidden from initiating unjust aggression.

Islamic teachings emphasize compassion, fairness, and restraint even in warfare. The Prophet ﷺ established ethical guidelines: 'Do not kill non-combatants (e.g., women, children, elderly, or clergy); do not harm civilians, destroy crops, or damage infrastructure; treat captives humanely.'

Islam encourages peace and reconciliation whenever possible,

وَاِنْ جَنَحُوْا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللّٰهِ ۗاِنَّهٗ هُوَ السَّمِيْعُ الْعَلِيْمُ

'And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allāh. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.' [QS. Al-Anfal (61):8]

Even in warfare, Muslims are held accountable for their actions. Acts of treachery, mutilation, and unnecessary harm are strictly forbidden.

The second principle is the prohibition of torture or harm. The Prophet (ﷺ) instructed Muslims to treat captives well and forbade harming them. For instance, after the Battle of Badr, he ordered the captives to be treated with dignity. Historical accounts mention that some companions gave their food to captives while they themselves went hungry.

The prohibition of torture or harm is a fundamental principle in Islamic teachings, especially in the context of warfare, the treatment of captives, and interactions with others. Islam emphasizes justice, mercy, and the sanctity of human dignity, and these principles extend even to adversaries during war.

The story of Thumama ibn Uthal is a remarkable example of the Prophet's ﷺ approach to dealing with captives. It illustrates the transformative power of kindness and mercy in Islamic teachings.

Thumama ibn Uthal was a prominent leader of the Banu Hanifa tribe and one of the fiercest enemies of Islam in the early years. He had harmed Muslims and even plotted to kill the Prophet ﷺ. However, after an encounter with the Muslims, Thumama's perspective changed completely. The Prophet (ﷺ) personally tended to Thumama. He ensured that Thumama was well-fed and treated humanely.

Abu Hurairah (رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنۡهُ), narrated, 'The Prophet (ﷺ) sent some cavalry towards Najd and they brought a man from the tribe of Banu Hanifa who was called Thumama bin Uthal. They fastened him to one of the pillars of the Mosque. The Prophet (ﷺ) went to him and said, "What have you got, O Thumama?' He replied, 'I have got a good thought, O Muhammad! If you should kill me, you would kill a person who has already killed somebody, and if you should set me free, you would do a favor to one who is grateful, and if you want the property, then ask me whatever wealth you want.' He was left till the next day when the Prophet (ﷺ) said to him, 'What have you got, Thumama? He said, 'What I told you, i.e. if you set me free, you would do a favour to one who is grateful." The Prophet (ﷺ) left him till the day after, when he said, "What have you got, O Thumama?' He said, 'I have got what I told you. "On that, the Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'Release Thumama.' So he (i.e. Thumama) went to a garden of date palm trees near to the Mosque, took a bath and then entered the Mosque and said, 'I testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, and also testify that Muhammad is His Apostle! By Allah, O Muhammad! There was no face on the surface of the earth most disliked by me than yours, but now your face has become the most beloved face to me. By Allah, there was no religion most disliked by me than yours, but now it is the most beloved religion to me. By Allah, there was no town most disliked by me than your town, but now it is the most beloved town to me. Your cavalry arrested me (at the time) when I was intending to perform the `Umra. And now what do you think?' The Prophet (ﷺ) gave him good tidings (congratulated him) and ordered him to perform the `Umra. So when he came to Mecca, someone said to him, 'You have become a Sabian?' Thumama replied, 'No! By Allah, I have embraced Islam with Muhammad, Apostle of Allah. No, by Allah! Not a single grain of wheat will come to you from Yamamah unless the Prophet gives his permission.' [Sahih Al-Bukhari 4372]

The third principle is the encouragement of the release or ransom of captives. Islamic teachings emphasize the humane treatment of captives and encourage their release or ransom as an act of mercy and justice. This principle aligns with the broader objectives of Islamic law (maqasid al-shari'ah), which seek to uphold human dignity, preserve life, and foster reconciliation. The Qur'an directly encourages the release or ransom of captives as a noble act of charity and goodwill. In surah Muhammad (47):4 that I've mentioned, there are two permissible outcomes for captives: Graceful Release (fidaa): Setting captives free without any compensation, as an act of kindness and mercy; and Ransom (fidya): Releasing captives in exchange for monetary compensation, goods, or even the release of Muslim captives held by the enemy. The underlying objective is to resolve conflict with minimal harm and encourage peace rather than prolong enmity.

Islamic jurists agree that the treatment of captives should prioritize mercy and justice, with preference given to their release when possible. The primary options discussed by scholars include Unconditional Release: Considered the most virtuous act; Ransom: Acceptable when it serves the interest of justice or benefits both parties; or Prisoner Exchange: Permitted if it leads to the release of Muslim captives.

Imam Al-Shafi’i and Imam Malik, for example, highlight that the decision regarding captives depends on the leader’s judgment and the circumstances, with the overarching aim of minimizing harm and promoting reconciliation.

After the Battle of Hunayn, the Prophet (ﷺ) released thousands of captives as an act of goodwill, strengthening ties between tribes and paving the way for peace. During his caliphate, Umar ibn al-Khattab (رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنۡهُ) implemented policies to ensure captives were treated fairly, and he actively encouraged their ransom or release. The principle of releasing captives aligns with contemporary international humanitarian laws, such as the Geneva Conventions, which emphasize the humane treatment of prisoners; encouragement of repatriation or release; and prohibition of indefinite detention without cause. Islam’s approach serves as a timeless framework for ethical conduct during conflict, emphasizing mercy, justice, and human dignity.

By promoting humane treatment, fair resolution, and opportunities for captives to regain their freedom, Islam aims to uphold human dignity and foster peace. These teachings remain relevant and serve as a moral guide in modern conflicts, encouraging ethical conduct and compassion even in challenging situations.

The fourth principle is no coercion in faith. Islamic teachings explicitly prohibit forcing captives or anyone to convert to Islam,

لَآ اِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّيْنِۗ

'There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. ...' [QS. Al-Baqarah (2):256]

The Prophet (ﷺ) upheld this principle, ensuring that captives were not pressured into accepting Islam.

The fifth principle is justice and accountability. Islamic law (Shari'ah) provides rules for dealing with captives, balancing mercy with justice. Any punishment must adhere to established legal principles, and arbitrary cruelty is forbidden. The Prophet (ﷺ) said,

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُعَذِّبُ الَّذِينَ يُعَذِّبُونَ فِي الدُّنْيَا

' Allah would punish those who torment people in this world (without any genuine reason).' [Sahih Muslim]

The sixth principle is freedom as a virtuous act. Freeing captives is considered a virtuous and rewarding deed in Islam. The Prophet (ﷺ) strongly encouraged the freeing of slaves and captives as a way to seek the pleasure of Allah,

أَيُّمَا رَجُلٍ أَعْتَقَ امْرَأً مُسْلِمًا اسْتَنْقَذَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِّ عُضْوٍ مِنْهُ عُضْوًا مِنْهُ مِنَ النَّارِ ‏

'"Whoever frees a Muslim slave, Allah will save all the parts of his body from the (Hell) Fire as he has freed the body-parts of the slave.' [Muttafaq Alaihi]

In the Battle of Badr, after the Muslim victory, the Prophet (ﷺ) treated captives with kindness and allowed some to earn their freedom by teaching literacy to Muslim children. In Liberation of Makkah, the Prophet (ﷺ) forgave most of his enemies who had been captured, demonstrating mercy and forgiveness.

Islamic teachings advocate for the humane treatment of hostages and prisoners of war, emphasising dignity, provision of basic needs, and mercy. While certain interpretations may suggest punitive measures against specific groups deemed as war criminals, these are exceptions rather than general directives. Islamic doctrine promotes kindness and compassion towards all captives, reflecting a commitment to ethical conduct even during conflict.

Islamic teachings emphasize humane treatment, justice, and eventual freedom for captives or hostages. While these teachings provide clear moral guidance, their application depends on the context and the individuals or groups involved. If hostages are treated well, it may reflect adherence to these Islamic principles, but any harm or mistreatment would violate the core values of the faith."

[Session 7]

[Session 5]

Bahasa

When Bagong Learned from Semar's Wisdom (5)

"Rumor has it, Petruk Mulyono plans to get his gang together for a thrilling motorcycle ride,' Bagong shared, all while awaiting the arrival of his father, Semar. However, my story isn't about 'Mulyono and his gang'; it's about 'Semar' ... the enigma and essence of who he truly is.

"Semar is a highly revered cultural figure in Javanese mythology. Semar is viewed as the embodiment of wisdom, simplicity, and humility. He is often depicted as a wise advisor who guides others towards virtuous living. Unlike other mythological characters adorned with grandeur, Semar portrays an ordinary figure, symbolizing the common people. As a dhanyang (territorial spirit) and pamong (leader or guardian), Semar is believed to protect and watch over his people, offering guidance and ensuring their welfare. Despite his simple appearance, Semar's character is imbued with deep spiritual and philosophical teachings. His paradoxical nature—being a god yet appearing humble and simple—illustrates the idea that true wisdom and power lie in humility. Semar's stories and symbolism have evolved, blending Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, and local beliefs, reflecting the rich and diverse cultural tapestry of Indonesia.

'Mengkaji Nilai Luhur Tokoh Semar by Dr Purwadi, M.Hum. (2014, Kanwa Publisher) delves into the noble values embodied by Semar, a central figure in Javanese wayang (shadow puppetry). Semar is portrayed as a wise and humble character, serving as a guide and mentor to the noble warriors (Kshatriya utama) while offering them advice to help achieve their ideals.
According to Dr. Purwadi, Semar serves as a profound representation of moral and ethical principles deeply rooted in Javanese philosophy. His character encapsulates the values that guide individuals and society toward harmony, justice, and balance. Dr. Purwadi analyzes Semar's role through various lenses to illustrate how he embodies and teaches these principles.
Semar is portrayed as a humble servant (punakawan) who appears physically unremarkable, even comical, yet carries deep wisdom. This humility reflects the Javanese value of andhap asor—modesty and self-restraint [the principle of Andhap Asor in Javanese philosophy embodies humility and politeness. This value is also embraced by the Madurese community. At its core, Andhap Asor emphasizes that a person's worth is not defined by their intelligence, wealth, or social status, but rather by their behaviour and the level of respect they show to others. It encourages individuals to adopt a modest demeanour, highlighting that true greatness lies in one's character and courtesy towards others]. Through Semar, Javanese philosophy teaches that true strength lies in humility, not arrogance; leadership and moral authority come from serving others, not from wealth or status.
Semar is a moral compass for the Pandawa (the protagonists of the Mahabharata) and often intervenes to ensure that justice prevails. He reminds leaders and warriors to act ethically, even in difficult circumstances. This role aligns with the Javanese principles of bebener (truthfulness) and Keadilan (justice), which emphasize acting under universal truth and righteousness and upholding fairness and integrity, particularly for the well-being of the people.
Semar’s role as a guardian of cosmic balance reflects the Javanese concept of keselarasan—the harmonious relationship between humans, nature, and the divine. Semar constantly advises the Pandawa to balance their material pursuits with spiritual growth, and to avoid extremes in behaviour, staying centred and mindful of the greater good. This philosophy promotes a holistic way of life that integrates the material, emotional, and spiritual dimensions.
Semar exemplifies the ideal of the servant-leader. He prioritizes the needs of others, often sacrificing his comfort for the greater good. Through this, Javanese philosophy teaches leaders must serve their people with sincerity and compassion; selfless service is the highest form of moral behaviour.
Semar uses humour and simple language to communicate profound moral lessons, making them accessible to all levels of society. His playful yet insightful demeanor reflects the Javanese approach of ngemong (guiding gently) and tepa salira (empathy), where ethical teachings are delivered with compassion and understanding, rather than force or fear. Semar symbolizes the balance between one's inner self (spiritual values) and outer self (actions in the material world). He teaches that ethical living involves aligning thoughts, words, and deeds with universal principles, reflecting the Javanese belief in tri kaya parisudha: Good thoughts (manacika); Good speech (wacika); Good actions (kayika).
Through his actions, guidance, and character, Semar embodies and promotes values that are integral to Javanese philosophy Humility: Success is grounded in modesty and respect for others; Justice: Ethical behaviour is non-negotiable, even in adversity; Harmony: Balancing all aspects of life ensures peace and well-being; Service: Leadership is about selflessly serving others; and Empathy: Moral lessons are best taught through understanding and relatability.

Semar serves as a vital figure who ensures harmony between leaders and the people, as well as between the spiritual and material realms. Semar acts as a moral compass for the Pandawa (protagonists of the Mahabharata in Javanese wayang), advising them on ethical leadership and ensuring they prioritize the welfare of the people.
He often critiques rulers or decisions that neglect the people's needs, emphasizing the importance of adil (justice) and bijaksana (wisdom) in governance. Semar embodies the philosophy of servant leadership (pemimpin yang melayani), teaching that a ruler has to serve, not to dominate, and to listen to the people's voices. He reminds leaders to stay humble, avoid arrogance, and maintain empathy for their subjects. By positioning Semar as a humble servant (punakawan), the wayang stories emphasize that wisdom and moral guidance often come from unexpected sources, not only from those in positions of power.
Semar represents the Javanese philosophical concept of unity in duality (manunggaling duality). He is both divine and human, embodying the coexistence of the sacred and the mundane.
His divine essence connects him to the spiritual world, while his human form and servant role allow him to relate to the material world and guide others in navigating it. He ensures that both spiritual and material pursuits remain balanced, preventing one from dominating the other. He reminds characters in Wayang that excessive focus on material wealth or spiritual detachment can lead to imbalance and disharmony. He frequently offers spiritual guidance to the Pandawa, helping them align their actions with the greater cosmic order (rukun jagad or universal harmony). He teaches that spiritual fulfilment and material success should support, not conflict with, each other.
Semar provides practical advice for resolving conflicts between leaders and the people, as well as reconciling spiritual ideals with material realities. His wisdom reflects the Javanese emphasis on diplomacy, patience, and compromise. Leaders (symbolizing the spiritual realm) must care for the people (symbolizing the material realm) to ensure societal harmony. Semar’s role as a bridge between these realms ensures that governance reflects both ethical integrity and practical concern for people's welfare.

Semar often uses humour to diffuse tension and deliver critiques, allowing him to address sensitive issues without creating conflict. Beyond giving advice, Semar uses his divine power to shield the Pandawa from harm, symbolizing the idea that moral and spiritual guidance is a protective force for society. In various wayang stories, Semar acts as a mediator, resolving disputes between characters by promoting fairness, understanding, and mutual respect.
Semar reflects deeply rooted Javanese ideals, Rukun (Harmony): Maintaining peace and balance in all relationships; Tepa Selira (Empathy): Understanding and respecting others’ perspectives, especially between leaders and the people; Sumeleh (Surrender to Divine Will): Aligning personal and societal actions with the divine cosmic order; Sederhana (Simplicity): Emphasizing humility and the rejection of greed or excess in leadership and life.
According to Dr. Purwadi, Semar embodies key Javanese values such as goodness, spiritual balance, and harmony in life through his actions, character, and teachings. Semar serves as a symbol of unwavering goodness and ethical behaviour. He consistently advises the Pandawa to act in ways that prioritize justice (adil) and righteousness (benar), aligning with Javanese ideals of moral virtue.
Semar stands as a protector of the common people, ensuring that leaders like the Pandawa remain humble and compassionate in their governance. His actions reflect the Javanese value of serving the greater good (ngabdi masyarakat). Although humble and humorous, Semar uses his position as a servant to impart profound wisdom. This demonstrates the Javanese belief that true goodness often comes from humility and selflessness.
Semar’s character as both divine and human represents the Javanese concept of manunggaling kawula lan Gusti (the unity between the self and the divine). This reflects the need for balance between worldly responsibilities and spiritual pursuits. In wayang kulit performances, Semar frequently teaches the Pandawa and others to seek harmony within themselves by aligning their actions with cosmic principles (rukun jagad or universal harmony). Semar’s advice often emphasizes sumeleh (surrender to the Divine), or the importance of accepting one’s destiny with faith in the Divine will, encouraging spiritual contentment and trust in the Creator.
Semar embodies the Javanese philosophy of balancing opposites—divine and human, spiritual and material, strength and humility. This duality serves as a reminder that all aspects of life must coexist in harmony. In his role as a punakawan, Semar often mediates conflicts among characters, resolving disputes by promoting understanding and cooperation. His actions reflect the Javanese principle of rukun (maintaining harmony and peace in relationships). Semar encourages living in harmony with nature and respecting its cycles. This reflects the Javanese belief in the interconnectedness of all beings and the importance of balance between humans and the environment.
Semar consistently teaches the Pandawa to consider the perspectives and needs of others. His actions and advice highlight the value of empathy in maintaining societal harmony. Semar’s humble appearance and straightforward nature emphasize the importance of simplicity and humility as a foundation for a good life. His wisdom is not abstract but practical, grounded in everyday challenges. This aligns with the Javanese emphasis on using knowledge to solve real-world problems.
Semar represents the ideal of gotong royong (mutual cooperation), where everyone works together for collective harmony. His guidance often encourages leaders to prioritize communal welfare over individual desires. By addressing spiritual and moral imbalances, Semar ensures that harmony extends beyond the human realm to the larger cosmic order (alam semesta).

Dr. Purwadi emphasizes that Semar is not just a character but a representation of Javanese values that prioritize goodness, spiritual balance, and harmony in life. His teachings, actions, and dual nature inspire individuals to uphold morality and goodness in all relationships; balance spiritual growth with material responsibilities; and live in harmony with others, nature, and the Divine.
Through Semar, Javanese philosophy conveys the importance of humility, empathy, and wisdom as the foundation for a balanced and harmonious life.

"Apa dan Siapa Semar" by Sri Mulyono (1989, CV Masagung) delves into the character of Semar, exploring his symbolic significance, spiritual teachings, and role in Javanese culture and philosophy. Sri Mulyono's work is known for combining academic rigour with a deep appreciation of Indonesian heritage, making it a key reference for those interested in understanding the deeper cultural and philosophical layers of wayang.
Semar is considered one of the most complex and enigmatic characters in Javanese wayang. His origins are a blend of Javanese mythology, Hindu-Buddhist traditions, and Islamic influences. Semar predates the Islamic influence on Javanese culture and is deeply rooted in the indigenous belief systems of ancient Java. His character originates in Javanese cosmology, which combines animism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. He is believed to be a divine being who descended to the mortal world to guide humanity, particularly the righteous (Pandawa) in the wayang epics. In Javanese mysticism, Semar is associated with cosmic order and harmony (jagad raya), embodying the unity between the human and divine realms.
In one origin story, Semar was once a celestial being named Ismaya, the elder brother of Sang Hyang Manikmaya. A dispute between the brothers led to Ismaya taking on a mortal form, with his purpose becoming one of service and humility. His transformation into Semar is symbolic of renunciation—leaving behind divine splendour to serve a higher moral and spiritual purpose among humans.

Semar’s unique physical traits—his potbelly, squinting eyes, and androgynous appearance [a look that combines both masculine and feminine characteristics. It can be used to describe a person's gender identity, fashion, or style. Someone who identifies as androgynous may have traits of both masculinity and femininity. They may also be nonbinary, meaning they don't identify as exclusively male or female. Androgyny can be expressed through fashion choices, such as wearing a skirt or a fedora with a flowy blouse. Gender-neutral items like t-shirts, jeans, blazers, and oxfords can be used to create an androgynous look. Natural-looking makeup and gender-neutral haircuts like shags or pixies can also be used. David Bowie, for example, often wore makeup and dresses, subverting sexual stereotypes. Grace Jones was famous for her androgynous look. Billie Eilish has been described as having an androgynous style, with oversized, baggy clothes]—are deeply symbolic. The potbelly represents abundance, nurturance, and the earth. His squinting eyes signify the ability to see beyond appearances, into the spiritual realm. His androgyny reflects the unity of opposites, symbolizing balance and harmony between masculine and feminine, divine and mortal, sacred and profane.
Semar is portrayed as a protector of righteousness, particularly for the Pandawa, the protagonists in the Mahabharata-inspired wayang stories. He acts as a moral compass and spiritual guide, reminding them of their duties and the higher purpose of their struggles. Despite his humble appearance and role as a servant, Semar holds immense power and wisdom. He often resolves conflicts and reveals deeper truths through humour and simplicity, embodying the Javanese ideal of leadership through humility.

Sri Mulyono contextualizes Semar’s role in the evolution of Javanese culture. During the Hindu-Buddhist period in Java, Semar was incorporated into wayang stories inspired by the Mahabharata and Ramayana. However, his role was distinctively Javanese, as he did not appear in the original Indian epics. Semar was uniquely crafted to embody Javanese values and provide a local, spiritual guide for the audience.
With the arrival of Islam in Java, Semar’s character was reinterpreted through an Islamic lens. He came to symbolize a devout servant of Allah, embodying the ideal qualities of a Muslim leader—justice, humility, and devotion to Allah. His role as a spiritual guide aligned with Islamic teachings, making him relevant to the evolving Javanese-Islamic society.
In many wayang tales, Semar is portrayed as the unwavering supporter and spiritual guide of the Pandawa, particularly Yudhishthira (the eldest brother and symbol of justice). During moments when the Pandawa faces grave challenges or moral dilemmas, Semar steps in to remind them of their higher purpose. His advice is often cloaked in simple language, but it carries deep spiritual and ethical truths. In the Wayang Purwa tradition, Semar often uses parables or riddles to explain the importance of remaining just and patient, even when wronged, reflecting the Javanese ideal of andhap asor (humility and self-restraint).
Semar frequently mediates disputes between the Pandawa and their adversaries, such as the Kurawa. Despite his humble appearance, his wisdom and spiritual authority command respect from all sides. In the story Semar Mbangun Kayangan ('Semar Builds the Heavens'), Semar restores cosmic balance when the heavens themselves are in disarray due to the arrogance of the gods. This story illustrates Semar’s role as a protector of the cosmic order, transcending even the gods in his authority.
In several wayang tales, Semar acts as a divine punisher of hubris and injustice. While he is usually gentle and humorous, when the gods or kings overstep their bounds, Semar reveals his divine form as Sang Hyang Ismaya to reprimand them. In one story, a proud king refuses to heed the advice of his people and commits grave injustices. Semar intervenes, using both wit and divine power to humble the king and restore order.
Semar often teaches the importance of balance between opposites: spiritual and material life, humility and authority, and joy and sorrow. This reflects the Javanese philosophy of rukun (harmony) and keseimbangan (balance). He encourages the Pandawa to act with moderation and to maintain harmony within their relationships, even when dealing with adversaries. A recurring theme in Semar’s teachings is sepi ing pamrih, rame ing gawe ('free from self-interest, diligent in work'). He exemplifies this ideal by dedicating himself entirely to the service of the Pandawa without seeking personal gain or recognition. This aligns with the Javanese concept of ethical leadership, where true leaders prioritize the well-being of others over their own interests.
Semar’s humble demeanour and humorous speech are deliberate choices that reflect the Javanese ideal of andhap asor (humility). Despite his immense power as a divine being, Semar chooses to serve rather than rule. He often advises the Pandawa to remain patient in the face of hardship, trusting in divine justice and the natural order of the universe. In his role as a servant, Semar shows that serving others with sincerity is a path to spiritual enlightenment. His actions demonstrate that humans can achieve spiritual fulfilment by aligning their will with divine purpose.

Several specific wayang tales bring out Javanese philosophical themes. In Semar Gugat ('Semar Files a Lawsuit') story, Semar criticizes the gods for neglecting their duties and allowing chaos to spread in the mortal world. His boldness in questioning divine authority reflects the Javanese belief that power, even divine power, must be held accountable. This story teaches the importance of moral courage and the need for leaders to remain just and compassionate.
In Petruk Dadi Ratu ('Petruk Becomes King') tale, Semar’s son, Petruk, temporarily becomes a king, leading to a series of comical but insightful events. Through Petruk’s misadventures, Semar teaches that leadership is a responsibility, not a privilege and that it must be grounded in humility and wisdom.
Sri Mulyono argues that Semar’s teachings remain profoundly relevant today. In a world often characterized by arrogance, materialism, and conflict, Semar’s emphasis on humility, harmony, and selflessness offers timeless lessons. His role as a protector of justice and balance serves as a reminder of the importance of ethical leadership and spiritual integrity.
Semar’s unique dual role as a punakawan (clown-servant) and a divine being makes him one of the most intriguing and multifaceted characters in Javanese wayang. The punakawan are comedic characters in Wayang who act as servants to the noble protagonists, such as the Pandawa, but their role is far from trivial. Semar stands out among the punakawan as the leader and most significant figure, embodying wisdom hidden beneath humour and humility. Semar appears as a simple, humorous old man, often engaging in slapstick comedy, witty remarks, or self-deprecating jokes. This outward simplicity allows him to connect with both the elite (the Pandawa) and the common people in the audience. Despite his outward appearance as a lowly servant, Semar is indispensable to the Pandawa. His counsel often resolves their dilemmas, and his presence is considered a divine blessing.
Semar’s comedic nature serves to highlight profound truths in a way that is accessible to everyone. Javanese philosophy values humour as a means to soften difficult truths and make wisdom more palatable. Through humour, Semar critiques societal norms, exposes hypocrisy, and reminds the Pandawa (and the audience) of their moral responsibilities. As a servant, his humility and willingness to serve teach that greatness lies in devotion to others, not in power or status."

[Session 6]
[Session 4]

Bahasa

When Bagong Learned from Semar's Wisdom (4)

"Once upon a time in the quirky village of Ribbitville, there lived a farmer named 'Pak Mul'. Pak Mul wasn't your typical farmer; he specialised in frogs. His pond was brimming with frogs of every colour, size, and croak, making him the talk of the town. While most villagers farmed rice, wheat, and vegetables, Pak Mul had an insatiable passion for frogs," Semar went on with a story.

"Pak Mul's frogs were famous for their melodious croaks and vibrant hues. People from nearby villages would flock to Ngerok village to witness the nightly frog concerts and marvel at the amphibian spectacle. Despite his success, Pak Mul was never satisfied. No matter how many frogs he had, he always wanted more. He dreamed of being the Frog King, ruling over an empire of endless croaking.

One day, as Pak Mul was counting his frogs for the fiftieth time that morning, he sighed dramatically and muttered, 'If only I had twice as many frogs! Then I would truly be the greatest frog farmer in all the land!'

Word of Pak Mul's greed reached the wise and whimsical Old man, who decided to visit him. The Oldman found Pak Mul standing by his pond, eyeing his frogs with a mix of pride and dissatisfaction.

'Pak Mul,' the old man called out, 'Why do you look so glum despite having such a marvellous pond full of frogs?'

Pak Mul looked up, startled. 'Oh, old man, my frogs are wonderful, but I need more. I want to be the greatest frog farmer ever, and for that, I need more frogs!'

The Oldman chuckled, his eyes twinkling with mischief. 'Ah, Pak Mul, you see, true greatness doesn't come from having more frogs. It comes from appreciating the frogs you already have. Let me tell you a story.'

Pak Mul nodded eagerly, hoping to discover the secret to endless froggy wealth.

'Once, there was a farmer who had a pond full of frogs, much like yours. But instead of being grateful, he always wanted more. He spent his days and nights catching more frogs, filling every nook and cranny with them. One day, he boasted to the village that he would catch every frog in the land. As he was chasing a particularly elusive frog, he slipped and fell into the pond. The frogs, having had enough of his greed, decided to teach him a lesson. They croaked loudly, forming a chorus that echoed through the village: 'Greed leads to folly, and folly to the pond!' The farmer, soaked and humiliated, learned that true wealth lies in contentment, not in endless accumulation.'

Pak Mul listened. 'Old man, you're right. I've been so focused on getting more frogs that I forgot to appreciate the ones I already have.'

The Old man patted Pak Mul on the back. 'Remember, Pak Mul, the key to happiness is not in the number of frogs you have but in the joy they bring you.'

But apparently, Pak Mul had a knack for forgetting things, and Old Man's advice just went in one ear and out the other. A few days later, there was Pak Mul, sitting on a throne wearing a crown in front of his frogs, probably playing a game of 'Let's Pretend I'm the President!'

Now let's continue with our topic. The fourth alternative is Public Engagement and Communication. It focuses on assessing the government’s transparency, communication strategies, and efforts to engage with citizens. It is analyzing the frequency and clarity of press briefings, public statements, and outreach efforts such as town halls or public consultations. Effective communication builds public trust and conveys a sense of accountability.

In 'The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation' (2007, PublicAffairs), Drew Westen emphasizes that effective communication and emotional engagement are pivotal in shaping public trust in political leaders. Westen argues that voters' decisions are predominantly influenced by emotional responses rather than rational deliberation. He suggests that political campaigns often fail when they rely solely on logical arguments, neglecting the emotional aspects that resonate with the electorate. By crafting messages that evoke emotions such as hope, fear, or empathy, leaders can create a stronger connection with voters, thereby enhancing public trust. Westen's analysis underscores the necessity for politicians to integrate emotional appeals into their communication strategies to effectively engage and persuade the public.

Drew Westen emphasizes that emotions significantly influence political decision-making. Westen argues that voters' choices are more often driven by emotional responses than by rational analysis. He suggests that successful political communication must engage the emotional aspects of the electorate to build trust and support.

Connecting these ideas, the first 100 days serve as a critical window for new administrations to emotionally engage the public. By effectively communicating achievements and demonstrating progress during this period, leaders can evoke positive emotions such as hope and confidence among citizens. This emotional engagement aligns with Westen's assertion that appealing to voters' emotions is essential for political success.

Therefore, the relationship between 100-day government evaluations and Westen's work lies in the strategic use of this initial period to foster emotional connections with the public. By prioritizing actions and communications that resonate emotionally, leaders can build a foundation of trust and support that is crucial for their administration's longevity and effectiveness.

The fifth alternative is the Institutional and Administrative Setup. It focuses on evaluating the establishment of functional and competent administrative structures. It examines the appointment of key officials, the organization of ministries, and the initial steps in reforming bureaucratic processes. A well-organized administration is crucial for implementing policies efficiently.

In Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan by Richard E. Neustadt (1991, Free Press), institutional competence in the early stages of a presidency is emphasized as critical for setting a foundation of effective leadership. Neustadt’s framework focuses on the president’s ability to influence others within the institutional and political structures of governance, and institutional competence plays a key role in this.

Neustadt argues that the early stages of a presidency are pivotal because they establish patterns of behaviour, decision-making processes, and relationships with key stakeholders. Effective use of institutional resources signals competence and authority to Congress, the bureaucracy, and the public.

Early competence in managing the executive branch and navigating institutional dynamics strengthens the president's credibility. Neustadt emphasizes that a president’s authority is largely rooted in perceptions of strength and effectiveness, which are shaped by how well they handle institutional challenges early on.

Neustadt notes that the president's ability to define and pursue priorities relies heavily on their institutional grasp. Early organizational missteps can squander political capital and make it harder to advance their agenda later.

Institutional competence includes understanding and leveraging the relationships between the presidency and other branches of government, especially Congress. Neustadt stresses that persuasion and negotiation are critical skills, and these require institutional knowledge and strategic insight.

Incompetence or mismanagement early in the presidency can lead to internal disarray and external perceptions of weakness. Neustadt highlights that missteps in managing the White House staff, setting up advisory structures, or handling crises can result in long-term damage to a president's influence.

Neustadt underscores that institutional competence is not just about organizational efficiency but about the president’s ability to command respect, manage relationships, and build a base of power for effective leadership. In the early stages, this competence serves as a foundation for maintaining authority and achieving political objectives throughout the administration.

The sixth alternative is Legislative Engagement. Focuses on reviewing the government’s ability to collaborate with the legislature or other governing bodies, by analyzing legislative proposals introduced, debates held, and the level of bipartisan or multiparty cooperation achieved. This method underscores the importance of coalition-building and functional democracy.

In Congress and the Presidency: Institutional Politics in a Separated System by Louis Fisher and David M. Abshire (1998, University Press of Kansas), the authors explore the dynamics between the executive and legislative branches in the United States' separated system of government. They emphasize the necessity of collaboration and mutual respect to ensure effective governance, as both branches have overlapping powers and responsibilities that require negotiation and compromise.

The U.S. Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, assigning specific powers to the executive (the President) and legislative (Congress) branches. While the President has the power to execute laws, Congress is responsible for creating them, along with oversight functions to ensure laws are implemented as intended. This separation necessitates interaction between the two branches.

Despite their separate powers, the executive and legislative branches must work together to achieve common goals. For instance, Congress relies on the President for leadership in foreign policy, budgeting, and national security. The President depends on Congress for appropriations, authorizations, and legislative support for policy initiatives.

Fisher and Abshire argue that while conflict between the branches is inevitable and often healthy for democracy, collaboration is essential for addressing complex national issues. They provide examples of where collaboration has succeeded and where partisan or institutional conflicts have led to gridlock.

The work outlines several mechanisms that facilitate collaboration. Presidents maintain teams to work directly with Congress to build support for their agendas. Joint efforts between members of both parties and branches help bridge divides. Effective governance often requires leaders to prioritize long-term national interests over short-term political gains.

Increasing polarization can hinder the ability of the branches to find common ground. Each branch seeks to protect its authority, leading to tensions over power balance. The media and public expectations can complicate negotiations by intensifying scrutiny or politicizing issues.

Fisher and Abshire provide historical examples of successful and unsuccessful collaboration, highlighting lessons learned. These examples illustrate how institutional politics shape the balance of power and influence between the branches.

One of the most notable examples of successful collaboration is the passage of the Marshall Plan. After World War II, the United States faced the challenge of aiding war-torn Europe to rebuild economically and politically. President Harry S. Truman and Congress worked together to design and fund this ambitious initiative. The Marshall Plan garnered broad bipartisan support, demonstrating how a unified sense of national purpose can transcend partisan differences. Truman provided strong leadership, articulating the importance of the initiative to both Congress and the American public. Congress played a critical role in debating, shaping, and funding the plan, ensuring it had legislative backing and public accountability.

So, the lesson learned is when the executive and legislative branches collaborate on shared goals, they can achieve transformative results. This success underscores the importance of prioritizing national and international interests over political divisions.

On the other hand, the War Powers Resolution, enacted during the Vietnam War era, illustrates a breakdown in executive-legislative collaboration. Passed over President Richard Nixon’s veto, the resolution sought to reclaim Congress’s constitutional authority to declare war, which had been eroded by executive overreach during the Vietnam War. Deep-seated mistrust between Congress and the Nixon administration undermined efforts to reach a consensus on war powers. The political climate, influenced by the Watergate scandal and Vietnam, exacerbated tensions between the branches.

Ambiguity in Implementation: The resolution's language was vague, leading to continued disputes over its application and effectiveness.

The lesson learned is unilateral actions or an inability to foster trust between branches can lead to policies that are difficult to implement and fail to resolve underlying issues. Effective governance requires clear communication, trust, and mutual respect for constitutional roles.

The Marshall Plan succeeded because leaders prioritized the national interest and maintained open channels of communication. The War Powers Resolution shows the dangers of conflict-driven policymaking that lacks consensus or clarity. Successful collaboration often stems from respect for institutional boundaries and a shared commitment to constitutional principles.

Fisher and Abshire argue that collaboration between the executive and legislative branches is not only constitutionally mandated but also essential for effective governance. They stress that mutual understanding, respect for institutional roles, and a willingness to compromise are crucial for overcoming challenges and achieving national objectives. Without collaboration, the separated system risks inefficiency, dysfunction, and erosion of public trust in government.

Collaboration between the executive and legislative branches does not undermine the system of checks and balances (as happened in the Archipelago country where the legislative branch only acted as a 'rubber stamp.'); instead, it complements and strengthens it. The system is designed to prevent overreach by any branch and ensure effective governance through cooperation within constitutional limits. Here’s how collaboration fits within the framework of checks and balances:

First, collaborative governance within constitutional boundaries

and mutual roles. Each branch has distinct but interdependent responsibilities. For instance, the legislature drafts and passes laws, but the executive implements them. The executive negotiates treaties, but the legislature ratifies them. Passing the annual budget requires negotiation between Congress (power of the purse) and the President (executive leadership). While each branch checks the other’s power, collaboration ensures the government operates smoothly. How do checks operate? Congress can refuse funding for executive initiatives if they overstep legal bounds or lack accountability. The President can veto legislation they find harmful, forcing Congress to revisit or negotiate further.

Second, checks through oversight. Even in collaborative efforts, the legislature maintains oversight to ensure the executive stays within its constitutional limits. Congressional hearings, investigations, and the confirmation of appointments allow Congress to scrutinise executive actions. During the Truman administration, Congress supported the Marshall Plan but also established oversight mechanisms to monitor how funds were used, ensuring transparency and accountability. So, Collaboration does not mean Congress relinquishes its oversight role; it remains vigilant while enabling the executive to act effectively.

Third, checks within collaboration. Even while working together, the branches retain their ability to constrain each other if needed. The President can veto legislation if it conflicts with their vision, but Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority. If the President issues executive orders that bypass Congress, the legislature can pass laws to limit their effect or use the courts to challenge overreach. Collaboration is not about unanimity; it involves negotiation, compromise, and the willingness to assert institutional authority when necessary.

Fourth, collaboration prevents Gridlock. While checks and balances protect against overreach, excessive conflict between branches can lead to gridlock, where neither side achieves its objectives. Collaboration allows for Policy Innovation. When both branches align, they can enact comprehensive reforms, as seen in the passage of Social Security (1935) or the Civil Rights Act (1964). Collaboration also allows for National Crisis Management. During crises, such as wartime or economic downturns, collaboration ensures a swift, unified response. For example, after 9/11, Congress and President George W. Bush worked together to pass the Patriot Act, though Congress later reviewed and revised parts of it to address concerns about civil liberties.

Fifth, tension enhances accountability. Collaboration does not eliminate tension—it balances it. The branches maintain a degree of scepticism toward one another, fostering accountability. For instance, the executive branch must justify its policies to Congress to secure funding or legislative approval. Congress must consider the practical implications of its laws, which the executive highlights during negotiations. This dynamic ensures that policies are carefully crafted and reflect both the will of the people (through Congress) and the practical considerations of implementation (through the executive).

In summary, collaboration and checks and balances are not mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing. Collaboration ensures effective governance, while checks and balances prevent the concentration of power and protect constitutional boundaries. The system thrives when both branches respect each other’s roles, engage in dialogue, and prioritize the nation’s interests above partisan concerns."

[Session 5]

[Session 3]

Bahasa

When Bagong Learned from Semar's Wisdom (3)

"Yes, there are alternative and more nuanced approaches to evaluating a government’s performance during its first three months (or early days) that go beyond the symbolic 100-day benchmark. These methods consider the complexity and diversity of governance tasks while allowing for a more holistic assessment," said Semar to continue the topic.

"The first alternative is alignment with Campaign Promises. This method evaluates whether the government has taken initial steps to deliver on its campaign promises, assessing specific actions, plans, or legislative proposals that align with their stated priorities. This method focuses on intent and alignment rather than immediate results, providing a fairer measure of early commitment.

In 'The Audacity to Win: How Obama Won and How We Can Beat the Partisan Divide Again' by David Plouffe (2009, Viking), the author examines the critical role of campaign promises in shaping governance and underscores the importance of delivering on those promises early in an administration. As Barack Obama's campaign manager during the 2008 election, Plouffe offers an insider's perspective on how campaign commitments influence public trust, set the tone for leadership, and impact political capital.

Plouffe highlights that campaign promises act as a social contract between candidates and voters. These commitments reflect the priorities and aspirations of the electorate. The Obama campaign focused on key promises such as economic recovery, healthcare reform, and addressing climate change. These resonated with voters during a time of economic crisis and political polarization. According to Plouffe, fulfilling these promises early validates the trust placed in a leader and strengthens their governing mandate.

Plouffe argues that the early days of an administration are critical for maintaining momentum. A president’s ability to quickly act on campaign promises reinforces their credibility and authority. For example, Obama prioritized passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009) to address the economic downturn, fulfilling his promise to stabilize the economy. Delivering on early promises builds goodwill among supporters and provides leverage for future legislative battles. Failure to act, on the other hand, risks alienating the base and eroding political capital.

Plouffe emphasizes that the early fulfilment of campaign promises shapes the public's perception of a leader’s competence and integrity. This perception is particularly important in overcoming partisan divides and maintaining broad-based support. Obama's swift actions on promises like closing loopholes for special interests and enhancing government transparency aimed to build trust in a system many voters felt was broken.

Plouffe acknowledges the challenges of balancing campaign promises with the realities of governance. Not all promises can be delivered immediately due to political, economic, or logistical constraints. He discusses how Obama’s team carefully communicated the progress of major goals like healthcare reform, even when delays or compromises were inevitable. Plouffe emphasizes the importance of transparency in explaining such challenges to maintain voter confidence.

Early delivery on promises not only benefits an administration politically but also lays the groundwork for transformative change. Plouffe reflects on how early successes like the economic stimulus paved the way for more ambitious initiatives, such as the Affordable Care Act (2010). Conversely, failing to act early can lead to disillusionment and opposition mobilization, weakening an administration’s ability to govern effectively.

So, David Plouffe illustrates how campaign promises shape governance by providing a clear mandate, building trust, and establishing the priorities of an administration. He stresses the importance of delivering on these promises early to capitalize on political momentum and maintain public support. Plouffe's work serves as a guide for leaders to navigate the transition from campaigning to governing while staying true to the commitments made to voters.

The second alternative is the Policy Framework and Vision. It focuses on examining whether the government has articulated a coherent policy framework and long-term vision, analyzing key addresses, policy documents, and budgetary plans introduced during the first three months. It emphasizes the quality of planning over the quantity of actions, reflecting thoughtful governance.

In 'The President’s Agenda: Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to Clinton' by Paul C. Light (1999, Johns Hopkins University Press), the author explores how U.S. presidents structure their policy priorities and emphasizes the critical importance of having a clear vision to guide their domestic agendas. Light provides a detailed analysis of the processes presidents use to formulate, prioritize, and implement policies while navigating the complexities of the political system.

Light explains that presidents typically enter office with a broad array of campaign promises. The challenge lies in narrowing these down into a feasible and coherent agenda. Effective agenda-setting requires distinguishing between urgent, high-impact policies and less pressing issues.

The political environment—such as the composition of Congress, public opinion, and economic conditions—plays a significant role in shaping a president's priorities. For instance: Presidents with strong congressional majorities may push for ambitious reforms. Conversely, presidents facing divided government may focus on achievable, bipartisan goals.

Light emphasizes that the first 100 days of a presidency are critical for setting the tone and structure of the agenda. Presidents often prioritize policies that capitalize on their electoral mandate and address pressing national issues.

A clear vision provides a framework for decision-making and helps the president maintain focus amid the competing demands of governance. Light argues that a well-defined vision enables the president to communicate priorities effectively to the public and Congress, and rally support from key stakeholders, including party members, interest groups, and the broader electorate. Without a clear vision, administrations risk being reactive rather than proactive. This can lead to fragmented policymaking and reduced effectiveness in achieving long-term goals.

Light discusses the tension between pursuing bold, transformative policies and ensuring that these policies are realistically achievable within the political system's constraints. Effective presidents strike a balance by setting ambitious goals that inspire and mobilize supporters and pairing these goals with practical strategies for implementation.

Light examines how presidents like Lyndon B. Johnson (with his Great Society programs) and Ronald Reagan (with his tax reforms) successfully aligned their vision with actionable priorities, while others faltered due to overreach or lack of clarity.

Light highlights the concept of 'policy windows,' moments when political and social conditions align to make certain policies viable. Presidents must be prepared to act swiftly when these opportunities arise. Structuring priorities also involves sequencing policies in a way that builds momentum. For example, presidents may start with policies that are easier to pass to establish credibility before tackling more contentious issues.

Light notes that presidents must juggle the expectations of various constituencies, from voters and party leaders to interest groups and international allies. This can complicate the prioritization process. Unforeseen events, such as economic crises or natural disasters (external disruptions), can derail even the most carefully structured agendas.

By analysing presidencies from John F. Kennedy to Bill Clinton, Light identifies recurring patterns in successful and unsuccessful agenda-setting, for example, Kennedy, struggled initially with a lack of legislative experience but eventually leveraged his vision to push forward initiatives like the space program. Johnson masterfully used his political skills and vision to pass transformative legislation, including the Civil Rights Act. Clinton faced challenges early in his presidency due to an overly ambitious and unfocused agenda, but later, he refocused on key priorities like welfare reform.

Paul C. Light’s 'The President’s Agenda' underscores the necessity of structuring policy priorities around a clear, actionable vision. A well-defined agenda helps presidents navigate the complexities of governance, build public and congressional support, and maximise their ability to effect meaningful change. The work provides valuable insights into the art and science of presidential leadership, illustrating how clarity of purpose can make or break a presidency.

The third alternative is Crisis Management, which focuses on evaluating how the government has responded to unforeseen crises during its early tenure. Review decisions, communication, and resource allocation in addressing immediate challenges such as natural disasters, economic disruptions, or security threats, this measure highlights adaptability and leadership under pressure.

In 'The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation' by Drew Westen (2007, PublicAffairs), the author explores how emotions significantly influence public perceptions of leadership, particularly during crises. Westen argues that a leader's ability to communicate effectively and resonate emotionally with the public during challenging times can define their legacy and determine political success.

Leaders are judged not only on their policies or decisions but also on their ability to connect emotionally with the public. In crises, people look for reassurance, strength, and a sense of direction. A leader who projects confidence and empathy can galvanize support, even when solutions are not immediately apparent.

Drew Westen's core thesis revolves around the idea that emotions, rather than rationality, are the primary drivers of political decision-making. Westen challenges the traditional assumption that voters make decisions based on logical analysis of policies, platforms, or facts. Instead, he asserts that political preferences are deeply rooted in emotional responses, shaped by personal values, identity, and the stories candidates tell.

Westen argues that political decisions are not the result of detached, rational deliberation. Instead, they emerge from the emotional brain, which processes feelings and subconscious biases. When faced with political choices, people often rely on their emotions to decide what feels right, rather than what is objectively logical. Voters may resonate more with a candidate’s tone, body language, or emotional appeal than with their policy details.

Stories matter more than statistics. Westen explains that humans are naturally drawn to narratives that evoke emotional connections, making storytelling a crucial tool in political persuasion. Successful politicians craft compelling narratives about who they are, what they believe, and how they will lead, rather than overwhelming voters with facts and figures. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chats during the Great Depression conveyed hope and reassurance, making him a symbol of resilience even when the economic outlook was dire.

Westen emphasizes that political loyalty is built on emotional identification with a leader or party. Candidates who evoke strong emotions—such as hope, fear, or anger—are more likely to inspire commitment and voter turnout. Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign slogan, 'Yes We Can,' elicited a sense of optimism and collective empowerment, resonating emotionally with millions.

Politicians often use emotional triggers to frame issues in ways that align with voters' core beliefs and identities. Westen explains that successful campaigns target emotions like pride, fear, and empathy. Post-9/11 rhetoric often framed national security debates in terms of fear and safety, which shaped public opinion and policy priorities.

Westen highlights that voters’ decisions are often tied to their values and identity. Politicians who appeal to these elements can forge a deeper emotional connection. Ronald Reagan’s appeal to 'traditional American values' resonated with voters who identified with a nostalgic vision of America.

Westen critiques politicians who rely solely on policy details and logical arguments, arguing that such approaches fail to engage voters emotionally. Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign is cited as a case where the candidate’s focus on detailed policy discussions lacked emotional resonance, failing to connect with many voters on a personal level.

Westen explains that the way a leader frames a crisis shapes public perceptions. For example, using language that conveys control and hope, such as 'We will overcome this challenge,' is far more effective than defeatist or overly technical language. Leaders who fail to frame the crisis appropriately risk appearing detached or incompetent.

Early responses to crises are critical in establishing a leader’s credibility. Westen cites examples where leaders who acted decisively, even with imperfect solutions, earned public trust because they conveyed a sense of urgency and responsibility. Conversely, hesitation or poor communication can erode public confidence, as people perceive inaction as a lack of leadership.

Westen highlights the importance of creating a compelling narrative that instils resilience in the public. Leaders who frame the crisis as a temporary challenge that the nation can overcome together tend to be viewed favourably. This narrative not only motivates citizens but also aligns their emotional state with the leader’s vision.

Westen warns against leaders who focus solely on technical expertise or policy details without addressing the emotional needs of the public. Leaders who appear cold, distant, or overly calculated may struggle to connect, leading to public dissatisfaction, even if their decisions are sound. Westen also discusses the lasting impact of a leader’s actions during crises. Effective crisis management can cement a leader’s reputation as a strong and decisive figure. Failures in addressing public fears or concerns can lead to a long-term loss of trust, which may affect the leader’s ability to govern effectively."

[Session 4]

[Session 2]

Bahasa

When Bagong Learned from Semar's Wisdom (2)

"As a close buddy of the President, and also, the vice President, celebrity RA should definitely uphold a good name, behaviour and carries out his duties well. Oh, and those presidential guards? They're just for creating content and showing off a new car to a friend. Getting fired wouldn't be pleasant either," commented Bagong after seeing an online post.

"Ah, never mind, let's continue our topic," said Semar.

"Critics of evaluating a government's performance within the first 100 days highlight several concerns regarding this practice," Semar moved on. "The 100-day evaluation often reduces complex policymaking processes to simplistic metrics, focusing on immediate, visible outcomes rather than long-term sustainability. This can lead to a neglect of deeper social changes and the broader implications of policies implemented during this period.

The intense media scrutiny during the first 100 days can result in sensationalised coverage, where minor missteps are highlighted while substantial achievements are overlooked. This can create a distorted public perception of a president's capabilities.

Early evaluations often fail to account for the legacy and actions of previous administrations, which can heavily influence a new president's ability to govern effectively. This complicates fair assessments of their performance.

Critics emphasize that focusing on the first 100 days ignores the long-term consequences of policies. Early decisions might have ramifications that unfold over the years, making it essential to adopt a more longitudinal approach to evaluation.

Some argue that 100 days is too short to judge the effectiveness of policies that may take years to yield results. Leaders may be pressured to prioritize quick wins over thoughtful, long-term strategies. Different governments face varying challenges, and rigid comparisons can be unfair. Critics contend that the 100-day mark is an arbitrary benchmark that may not accurately reflect a president's capabilities or the complexities of governance. It often leads to superficial assessments based on immediate actions rather than long-term outcomes.

The early days of a presidency can be heavily influenced by the legacy and actions of predecessors, making it difficult to assess a new president's performance independently. For example, Harry Truman faced challenges due to the public's lingering affection for FDR, which affected his early evaluations despite his significant contributions later in his presidency.

The media's focus on the first 100 days can lead to sensationalism, where minor missteps are magnified while substantial achievements may be overlooked. This can create skewed perceptions of a president's effectiveness based on short-term reactions rather than long-term goals and policies. Many critiques highlight that early evaluations often ignore the long-term implications of decisions made during this period. For instance, Bill Clinton faced significant criticism in his first 100 days but went on to achieve notable successes later in his presidency.

The dynamic nature of policymaking means that evaluating government performance requires a more nuanced approach than simply looking at the first few months. Critics argue for a more longitudinal evaluation culture that considers the ongoing impact of policies over time.

In "Presidents in Crisis: Tough Decisions Inside the White House from Truman to Obama" (2015, Arcade Publishing), Michael K. Bohn explores the complexities of presidential decision-making during crises. He provides valuable insights into why the first 100 days may not always be a fair or practical timeframe for evaluation.

Bohn emphasizes that crises often arise unexpectedly, leaving presidents little time to prepare. Each crisis presents unique challenges, requiring a tailored response rather than a pre-planned agenda. Evaluating a presidency based on actions taken within the first 100 days might overlook the time required to assess, strategize, and implement effective solutions to emerging crises.

According to Bohn, the immense pressure of making decisions with limited information is a defining feature of crisis management. He highlights examples of presidents, such as Harry Truman during the early Cold War or John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, navigating high-stakes decisions that often had no clear 'right' answer. These decisions might not fit neatly into a 100-day evaluation framework, as their outcomes often take months or years to materialize.

Bohn points out that new presidents face institutional inertia and political resistance, which can slow down decision-making. For example, building trust with Congress, assembling a reliable team, and understanding the nuances of federal agencies take time. The first 100 days may therefore be more about laying groundwork than achieving visible outcomes.

Bohn discusses how presidents often need to prioritize long-term strategies over immediate results. For instance, Barack Obama faced criticism for not achieving rapid economic recovery during his first 100 days, but his policies, such as the stimulus package, were designed for sustained impact rather than quick fixes.

Bohn explores how public and media expectations for dramatic change in the first 100 days can create unrealistic pressures on presidents. This disconnect often leads to superficial evaluations, focusing on symbolic gestures or rushed initiatives rather than substantive progress. Bohn notes that Truman faced an unprecedented ethical and strategic dilemma shortly after taking office. Evaluating his presidency based on his early decisions alone would ignore the broader context and consequences of those choices. While Obama acted decisively to address the economic collapse, many of his policies were judged prematurely, with their full effects becoming apparent only years later.

Bohn argues that while the first 100 days can offer a snapshot of a president's priorities and leadership style, they are not always indicative of long-term success or competence. Crises require thoughtful, adaptive decision-making that often extends well beyond this symbolic timeframe. As such, a fair evaluation should consider the complexity and time-sensitive nature of presidential decision-making during crises.

In 'What It Takes: The Way to the White House' (1992, Random House), Richard Ben Cramer delves into the immense pressures faced by presidential candidates and newly elected leaders, particularly the expectations placed upon them during the early days of their administration. This work provides an in-depth analysis of the political, media, and public demands that shape leadership decisions.

Cramer highlights how leaders are burdened by the promises they made during their campaigns. Upon taking office, presidents are expected to deliver on these promises quickly, even if the political or economic realities make immediate action impractical. This demand for rapid results creates pressure to prioritize visible 'wins' over thoughtful, long-term strategies.

Cramer emphasizes the intense scrutiny presidents face from both the media and the public. In the early days of an administration, the media often sets the narrative, focusing on whether the new leader is fulfilling expectations or floundering. This relentless attention can lead to rushed decisions or symbolic actions designed to appease public opinion rather than address root issues.

Cramer notes that presidents must quickly establish their authority and credibility to gain the trust of Congress, the public, and international leaders. Failure to act decisively in the early days can result in perceptions of weakness, which can undermine an administration's ability to govern effectively.

According to Cramer, new presidents often face resistance from entrenched political interests, including opposition parties and bureaucratic inertia. Balancing the need for cooperation with the urgency to deliver results adds another layer of complexity to early decision-making.

Cramer explores the concept of political momentum, which is strongest immediately after an election. Presidents are expected to capitalize on this momentum to push through key initiatives before they wane, creating a 'now or never' mentality that drives early action. Cramer describes George H. W. Bush's struggle to define his presidency after succeeding Ronald Reagan, facing pressure to both differentiate himself and maintain continuity. Cramer also discusses Jimmy Carter’s focus on delivering quick reforms to fulfil his campaign promises, which led to both successes and missteps.

In 'Measuring Presidential Performance', edited by John W. Self and Chris J. Dolan (2016, Routledge), the editors and contributors critique the 100-day benchmark for evaluating presidents. This academic work explores the complexities of assessing presidential performance and highlights the limitations of using the first 100 days as a definitive yardstick.

The contributors argue that the 100-day benchmark is arbitrary and does not align with the realities of governance. While it gained prominence due to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented achievements, it is not inherently meaningful for all administrations or contexts. Policies and initiatives often take months or years to bear fruit, making evaluations based on the first 100 days premature.

The 100-day benchmark emphasises symbolic actions, such as signing executive orders or announcing bold initiatives, rather than substantive achievements. These actions may create a perception of productivity rather than delivering tangible, long-term results. The contributors highlight that different presidents inherit vastly different circumstances. For example, FDR entered office during the Great Depression [a severe economic downturn that began in the United States in 1929 and lasted for a decade. It was the worst economic crisis in the history of the industrialized Western world], necessitating immediate and dramatic action.

Conversely, presidents inheriting relatively stable situations may have fewer urgent tasks, leading to unfair comparisons. The benchmark fails to account for the specific challenges or crises a president may face during their early tenure.

The 100-day standard often measures success by the number of bills passed or executive actions taken. The contributors argue that this approach overlooks the importance of quality over quantity. Passing poorly conceived legislation for the sake of early action can lead to unintended consequences. According to the contributors, the media and public often use the 100-day benchmark to demand immediate results, fostering unrealistic expectations. This pressure may force presidents to prioritize short-term gains over thoughtful, strategic planning, potentially compromising long-term governance.

The editors emphasize that effective leadership involves setting a vision and building coalitions, which may not yield visible results within the first 100 days. Evaluating a presidency based solely on early legislative accomplishments risks ignoring other critical aspects of leadership, such as crisis management or foreign policy.

The editors also examine several presidencies, including Barack Obama, his early efforts to address the 2008 financial crisis and pass the Affordable Care Act illustrate the tension between urgency and long-term planning; George W. Bush; his relatively quiet first 100 days contrasted sharply with the transformative events of 9/11, demonstrating how early evaluations may not capture the eventual trajectory of a presidency.

So, the editors and contributors argue that the 100-day benchmark is an oversimplified and often misleading tool for evaluating presidents. It prioritizes short-term action and legislative output while neglecting the complexities of governance, the varying contexts of different presidencies, and the importance of long-term vision. The work calls for more nuanced and comprehensive approaches to assessing presidential effectiveness.

While it originated in the United States, the 'first 100 days' has become a global yardstick for evaluating new governments, leaders, and even corporate executives. The concept reflects the general expectation that early actions signal the administration's vision and effectiveness.

The term '100 days' was also used to describe Napoleon's return to power in 1815 between his escape from exile and his defeat at the Battle of Waterloo. While unrelated, the term's historical resonance adds to its prominence. In 'Napoleon: A Life' by Andrew Roberts (2014, Viking), the author provides a detailed account of Napoleon Bonaparte's dramatic 'Hundred Days' following his return from exile on the island of Elba. This period, from March 20 to June 28, 1815, is one of the most famous in European history and is a testament to Napoleon’s charisma, ambition, and the fragility of European alliances.

After less than a year on Elba, Napoleon escaped on February 26, 1815, with a small contingent of supporters. He aimed to reclaim his throne in France, spurred by dissatisfaction with the Bourbon monarchy and the political unrest in post-Napoleonic Europe. Roberts describes how Napoleon’s march to Paris was marked by growing support. As he progressed, soldiers sent to arrest him defected, famously declaring, 'Vive l'Empereur!'

Napoleon entered Paris on March 20, 1815, as King Louis XVIII fled. His return was marked by both jubilation and trepidation. Roberts highlights Napoleon’s initial strategy, which involved presenting himself as a reformist leader, promising peace, and offering constitutional reforms through the Acte Additionnel, a revision of the Napoleonic Constitution.

Despite Napoleon’s overtures for peace, the major European powers—including Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Russia—swiftly united against him, forming the Seventh Coalition. They viewed his return as a threat to the fragile postwar order established by the Congress of Vienna. Roberts discusses Napoleon’s efforts to consolidate power domestically, reorganizing the military and rallying public support while facing immense international opposition.

Roberts narrates the lead-up to the Battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815, where Napoleon faced the Duke of Wellington’s Anglo-Allied forces and the Prussian army under Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher. Despite moments of brilliance, the campaign ended in defeat due to miscommunication among his commanders, adverse weather, and the resilience of his opponents.

Roberts reflects on the symbolic significance of the Hundred Days [les Cent-Jours also known as the War of the Seventh Coalition (Guerre de la Septième Coalition)], portraying it as the ultimate testament to Napoleon’s ability to inspire loyalty and fear while also revealing the limits of his power in the face of united opposition. After Waterloo, Napoleon’s position became untenable. He abdicated for the second time on June 22, 1815, and attempted to secure asylum in Britain but was ultimately exiled to Saint Helena, a remote island in the South Atlantic."

"Are there alternative and more nuanced approaches to evaluating a government’s performance during its first three months, or early days, that go beyond the symbolic 100-day benchmark?" Bagong wanted to know.

[Session 2]

[Session 1]

Bahasa