Eid al-Fitr 2025: A Time for Gratitude and Renewal (2)

As the blessed month of Ramadan comes to an end, we welcome Eid al-Fitr 2025 with hearts filled with gratitude and joy. Eid is not merely a celebration; it is a spiritual milestone that reminds us of the lessons learned during Ramadan—discipline, patience, generosity, and the deep connection with Allah.

Throughout Ramadan, we trained ourselves to resist temptations, purify our intentions, and dedicate more time to worship. We fasted from dawn until sunset, not only from food and drink but also from negative thoughts and actions. Now, as we celebrate Eid, we must reflect: How can we carry the spirit of Ramadan into the rest of the year?

Eid is a day of gratitude. We thank Allah for granting us the strength to complete Ramadan and for showering us with countless blessings. The takbirat of Eid remind us to glorify Allah, acknowledging His greatness and mercy. It is also a time to express gratitude through our actions—by helping those in need and spreading kindness.

Eid is a day of unity and forgiveness. As families and communities come together in prayer and celebration, we are reminded of the importance of maintaining strong relationships. It is a day to mend broken ties, to forgive past mistakes, and to embrace one another with love and sincerity. The Prophet (ﷺ) emphasized the value of brotherhood and reconciliation, and Eid provides the perfect opportunity to practice this.

Eid is a day of generosity. Before the Eid prayer, we give Zakat al-Fitr, ensuring that those who are less fortunate can also partake in the joy of Eid. This act of charity purifies our fast and reinforces the importance of social responsibility. True happiness comes not just from receiving but from giving and sharing with others.

Eid is a day of renewal. It marks a new beginning, a chance to sustain the habits of Ramadan—continuing our prayers, keeping our hearts attached to the Qur'an, and striving to be better individuals. The true success of Ramadan is reflected in our ability to maintain its lessons beyond the month itself.

As we gather with loved ones, exchange greetings, and enjoy delicious meals, let us remember the true essence of Eid. May this day bring peace, joy, and countless blessings to all. May Allah accept our fasting, prayers, and good deeds, and grant us the ability to remain steadfast in our faith. Ameen.

Taqabbalallahu minna wa minkum—Taqabbal yaa Kareem!

Eid Mubarak!

[Part 1]

[Bahasa]

Eid al-Fitr 2025: A Time for Gratitude and Renewal (1)

Ramadan is a sacred month for Muslims worldwide, marked by fasting, salah, reflection, and community. Ramadan serves as a time for spiritual rejuvenation. Fasting from dawn until sunset is a physical act and a means of purifying the soul. It encourages self-discipline and helps individuals reconnect with their faith. Many Muslims use this time to engage in increased prayer (Salah) and reading of the Quran, deepening their understanding of Islamic teachings.

Fasting cultivates empathy for those who are less fortunate. By experiencing hunger and thirst, Muslims are reminded of the struggles faced by those living in poverty. This often inspires acts of charity (Infaq and Zakat) and community service, reinforcing the importance of compassion and support for one another.

Ramadan fosters a sense of community among Muslims. Iftar, the meal to break the fast, is often shared with family, friends, and neighbors, promoting unity and strengthening bonds. Many mosques host communal prayers and meals, creating an inclusive atmosphere that enhances social ties.

This month encourages personal reflection on one's life, actions, and relationship with Allah. It is an opportunity to express gratitude for the blessings received and to seek forgiveness for past mistakes. Many individuals set personal goals for spiritual growth during Ramadan, aiming to emerge as better versions of themselves.

Fasting teaches mindfulness and self-control. It challenges individuals to refrain from not only food and drink but also negative behaviors such as gossip or anger. This practice can lead to improved mental well-being and a more positive outlook on life.

As Ramadan unfolds each year, it invites Muslims to reflect deeply on their lives, their relationships with others, and their connection to Allah. It is a month filled with opportunities for growth, compassion, and community spirit—a time to renew faith and strive towards becoming better individuals.

Ramadan is a profound time for reflection and learning within the Islamic faith. Fasting during Ramadan is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, which are foundational acts of worship. The practice of abstaining from food, drink, and other physical needs from dawn until sunset teaches self-discipline, patience, and spiritual growth. It serves as a reminder of the importance of self-control and the value of gratitude for the blessings one has.

Ramadan emphasizes the importance of increased salah and spiritual connection. Muslims are encouraged to perform additional prayers, particularly Taraweeh, which are special nightly prayers during this month. This practice reinforces the significance of maintaining a strong relationship with Allah and seeking guidance through worship.

Generosity is a core teaching of Islam that is especially highlighted during Ramadan. Muslims are encouraged to give Zakat (obligatory almsgiving) and Sadaqah (voluntary charity) to help those in need. This act not only purifies wealth but also fosters a sense of community and compassion for the less fortunate.

Ramadan is a time for introspection, encouraging Muslims to reflect on their actions and seek forgiveness for past mistakes. The month serves as an opportunity to repent sincerely and strive for personal improvement, reinforcing the belief in Allah's mercy and compassion.

The communal aspects of Ramadan highlight the importance of unity among Muslims. Sharing meals during Iftar and participating in collective prayers strengthen bonds within families and communities. This teaching emphasizes that Islam is not just an individual journey but also a collective experience that fosters support and solidarity.

Fasting cultivates a sense of gratitude for the sustenance that many often take for granted. The experience of hunger reminds individuals to appreciate their blessings and approach life with humility. This teaching encourages Muslims to be thankful for what they have while remaining mindful of those who face hardship.

Ramadan is known as the month in which the Quran was revealed, making it a time to engage deeply with this holy text. Many Muslims aim to read or recite the entire Quran during this month, reflecting on its teachings and applying them to their lives. This practice underscores the importance of Divine guidance in daily life.

Fasting during Ramadan significantly alters the daily routines of Muslims, creating a unique rhythm that emphasizes spirituality, community, and self-discipline.

The pre-dawn meal, known as Suhoor, is consumed before the fast begins at dawn. This meal is crucial for providing energy throughout the day and often requires waking up early to eat.

The fast is broken at sunset with Iftar, which typically starts with dates and water, followed by a larger meal. Families and communities often gather to share this meal, making it a significant social event.

Many Muslims adjust their work or study hours to accommodate fasting. Some may start work earlier or take longer breaks during the day to rest. In some regions, businesses may operate on reduced hours to allow employees to observe their fasts more comfortably.

Fasting encourages Muslims to engage more deeply in prayer (Salah) and spiritual reflection. Additional prayers, such as Taraweeh, are performed at night, leading to a more structured evening routine centered around worship. Many individuals also dedicate time to reading the Quran and engaging in acts of devotion, which can lead to a more spiritually focused daily schedule.

Ramadan fosters a sense of community through shared meals and communal prayers. This often leads to increased social gatherings with family and friends during Iftar and participation in mosque activities.

Many Muslims also engage in charitable activities during this month, setting aside time for volunteering or donating to those in need.

Fasting can affect energy levels throughout the day. Many individuals find that they need to adjust their physical activities, opting for lighter exercise or rest periods to conserve energy.

Staying hydrated during non-fasting hours becomes essential, leading to conscious planning of fluid intake during Suhoor and Iftar.

The act of fasting encourages mindfulness about food consumption and personal behavior. Many Muslims use this time for self-reflection, focusing on personal growth and setting intentions for improvement. This mindfulness often extends beyond Ramadan as individuals strive to maintain healthier habits developed during the month.

Fasting during Ramadan profoundly impacts daily routines by altering meal times, work schedules, spiritual practices, and social interactions. While it presents challenges such as adjusting to hunger and fatigue, it also offers opportunities for personal growth, community bonding, and spiritual enrichment. The changes experienced during this month often lead to lasting positive effects that extend beyond Ramadan itself.

[Part 2]

Bahasa

Challenges for the Civilian Leaders (4)

Civilian leaders often excel at management and organisational efficiency, prioritising long-term goals and administrative processes. They tend to be more flexible than military-trained leaders, adjusting to diverse governance environments. Civilian leaders bring a broader societal viewpoint, which can be beneficial in addressing civilian concerns. However, civilian leaders may lack the structured leadership cultivation seen in military environments. They may struggle with high-stakes or time-sensitive decisions.

Civilian leaders face a variety of challenges that stem from the complexities of modern governance, civil-military relations, and the evolving needs of civilian workforces. These challenges are deeply intertwined with societal expectations, organizational dynamics, and the increasing demands placed on public service.

One of the most pressing challenges is the erosion of civilian control over the military. Civilian leaders often find themselves reliant on military elites to inform national security policy, which can lead to an imbalance in civil-military relations. This reliance stems from a shrinking pool of experienced civilian policymakers and appointees, exacerbated by extreme partisanship and polarization within political systems. The result is a weakened ability to oversee military operations effectively and align them with broader political objectives. Furthermore, myths about the superiority of military expertise over civilian leadership in strategic defense have eroded public trust in civilian leaders, making it harder for them to assert authority in defense policy.

The myth that the military is inherently superior to civilian leadership in matters of defense and security has developed over time due to a combination of cultural, historical, and societal factors. This perception is deeply rooted in how societies view the military and its role in safeguarding national interests.

One of the primary reasons for the myth's development is the deep respect and admiration many societies have for the military. Soldiers are often seen as heroes who make extraordinary sacrifices to protect their nation, sometimes risking their lives in the process. This admiration creates a perception that military personnel possess unique qualities—such as discipline, decisiveness, and courage—that make them better suited for leadership roles in national security compared to civilians.

Historical events often reinforce this myth. In times of crisis or war, military leaders are frequently celebrated for their decisive actions and victories. These narratives overshadow the contributions of civilian leaders, who may have played crucial roles behind the scenes in diplomacy, strategy, or resource management. Over time, society comes to associate military leadership with success in handling security challenges, while civilian leadership is viewed as secondary or less impactful.

The myth is also fueled by a lack of public understanding about the complexity of modern security challenges. Many people assume that defense issues are primarily about combat and battlefield tactics—areas where military expertise is undoubtedly strong. However, modern security threats like cyberattacks, terrorism, and economic warfare require interdisciplinary approaches involving diplomacy, technology, economics, and social sciences—fields where civilian leaders often excel. The oversimplification of security as purely a military domain leads to an exaggerated perception of military superiority.

Media plays a significant role in perpetuating this myth. Movies, television shows, and news coverage often portray military leaders as strong, competent figures who save the day during crises. In contrast, civilian leaders are sometimes depicted as indecisive or disconnected from "real-world" challenges. These portrayals shape public perceptions and reinforce the belief that military leadership is more effective.

Generational storytelling within families and communities also contributes to the myth's persistence. Stories of bravery and heroism in wartime are passed down through generations, creating emotional ties to the military institution. These narratives often overlook or minimize the contributions of civilian leaders who work behind the scenes to prevent conflict or resolve crises diplomatically.

In some cases, there has been a decline in civilian expertise in national security roles due to fewer civilians pursuing careers in defense policy or transitioning into leadership positions after serving in government. This has led to an increased reliance on military elites for advice on security matters, reinforcing the perception that civilians lack the necessary expertise.

While there is no denying that military leaders bring valuable skills and experience to national security discussions, it is a misconception to view them as inherently superior to civilian leaders across all aspects of defense policy. Both groups contribute unique perspectives that are essential for addressing modern security challenges effectively. The myth persists because of cultural reverence for the military, historical narratives that glorify combat achievements, oversimplified views of security issues, media portrayals, emotional connections to wartime heroism, and gaps in civilian expertise. Combating this myth requires fostering collaboration between civilian and military leaders while educating society about the importance of interdisciplinary approaches to national security.

The myth that the military is inherently superior to civilian leadership in matters of national security and defense policy stems from several cultural, historical, and societal factors. Over time, this belief has been nurtured by both civilian and military communities, creating persistent misconceptions that elevate military expertise while diminishing civilian contributions.

One key factor driving this myth is the admiration for military service as a form of ultimate civic virtue. In many societies, military personnel are viewed as individuals who have made extraordinary sacrifices for their country, often in life-threatening situations. This admiration creates an artificial distance between civilians and soldiers, leading to the perception that military experience is not only noble but also indispensable for understanding complex defense issues. For instance, battlefield experience is often seen as the most authoritative source of expertise on military policy, overshadowing other forms of knowledge such as academic research or diplomatic experience.

Another contributing factor is the assumption that time in uniform provides unique operational insights that civilians cannot replicate. Critics sometimes dismiss civilian perspectives by arguing that those who have not "heard the distant roar of cannon" cannot make sound judgments about national security matters. This belief undermines the value of civilian expertise in areas like cybersecurity, diplomacy, and economic strategy—all critical components of modern warfare and defense planning.

The myth is further reinforced by a shrinking pool of experienced civilian leaders in national security roles. As fewer civilians pursue careers in defense policy or serve in the military before transitioning to civilian leadership positions, reliance on military elites has grown. This dependence has led to perceptions of civilian amateurism and a belief that civilians are less equipped to exercise oversight or make strategic decisions.

Cultural attitudes also play a role. Societies often elevate soldiers above civilians in public confidence, creating a monopoly on trust that can erode civic involvement and diminish civilian contributions to defense policy. This dynamic can result in situations where military leaders override civilian input or where civilians themselves abdicate their responsibility to engage critically with national security issues.

While combat experience undoubtedly provides valuable perspectives, it is not all-encompassing. Military expertise, like any other form of knowledge, has its biases and blind spots. Civilians bring complementary skills and insights that are essential for broad strategic judgment, as evidenced by historical successes like George Kennan's Cold War containment strategy—a framework developed without direct combat experience.

Ultimately, this myth is corrosive to democratic systems. It undermines civilian control of the military—a cornerstone of democracy—and weakens national security by sidelining diverse perspectives. Addressing these misconceptions requires acknowledging the unique strengths of both civilian and military expertise while fostering collaboration between them to ensure balanced and effective leadership in defense policy.

The myth that the military is inherently superior to civilian leadership in matters of national security and defense policy is fundamentally flawed. While military personnel undoubtedly possess valuable skills and experiences, particularly in operational contexts, it is incorrect to assert that they hold a monopoly on expertise in all aspects of defense and security.

First, it is essential to recognize that the complexities of modern warfare and national security extend far beyond the battlefield. Issues such as cybersecurity, intelligence analysis, diplomatic relations, and economic policy play critical roles in shaping effective defense strategies. Civilians often bring specialized knowledge and skills in these areas that military leaders may not possess. For example, experts in international relations or economics can provide insights into how global dynamics affect national security, which is crucial for comprehensive strategic planning.

Moreover, the assumption that military experience automatically translates to superior judgment in all defense matters overlooks the fact that military leaders operate within a specific framework shaped by their training and experiences. While they excel in tactical decision-making under pressure, this does not necessarily equip them with the broader strategic vision required for long-term policy development. Civilians often engage in rigorous academic research and analysis, contributing theoretical frameworks that can enhance the understanding of complex geopolitical issues.

Additionally, the notion that civilians lack credibility or authority in defense matters can lead to detrimental consequences for democratic governance. Civilian oversight of the military is a foundational principle of democracy, ensuring that military power remains accountable to elected representatives and the public. When civilians are sidelined or dismissed as less capable, it undermines this vital balance and risks creating an environment where military perspectives dominate without sufficient checks and balances.

Furthermore, historical examples demonstrate that successful national security strategies often arise from collaboration between civilian and military leaders. The integration of diverse viewpoints fosters more nuanced decision-making processes that consider various factors influencing security outcomes. For instance, during the Cold War, civilian strategists like George Kennan played pivotal roles in shaping U.S. foreign policy without direct military experience. Their insights were instrumental in developing strategies that effectively addressed complex global challenges.

In conclusion, while military leaders bring essential operational expertise to the table, it is a misconception to view them as inherently superior to civilian leaders in all aspects of national security. Both civilian and military perspectives are crucial for effective governance and strategic decision-making. Emphasizing collaboration between these two groups not only enriches policy discussions but also strengthens democratic institutions by ensuring a balanced approach to national security challenges.

Another significant challenge is recruitment and retention within the civilian workforce. Government restrictions on pay scales and career advancement often make it difficult to attract top talent. Civilian leaders must also navigate generational differences and manage diverse teams with varying expectations. Unlike military environments that emphasize discipline and hierarchy, civilian workplaces demand flexibility, emotional intelligence, and cultural sensitivity. Leaders often struggle with motivating employees who may push personal agendas or resist teamwork, requiring nuanced approaches to foster collaboration.

Civilian leaders also face difficulties in balancing priorities. The interconnected nature of government missions creates overwhelming workloads, with many leaders taking on too many responsibilities due to their broad awareness of overarching goals. This inability to delegate effectively can lead to inefficiency and burnout

Additionally, fiscal constraints limit innovation and organizational change, forcing leaders to operate in "do more with less" environments while maintaining transparency and accountability under public scrutiny

Finally, civilian leaders must contend with strategic challenges in modern warfare and governance. As conflicts increasingly impact civilian life directly—through cyberattacks or infrastructure disruptions—leaders must engage deeply in areas traditionally managed by the military. Balancing nonpartisan governance while navigating partisan pressures further complicates their roles

Civilian leaders must adapt to these challenges by fostering innovation, improving leadership development programs, and strengthening civil-military relations while ensuring effective governance amidst societal and organizational complexities.

Probably, the combination of military and civilian leadership styles presents a fascinating interplay of strengths and weaknesses that can significantly impact organizational effectiveness. As societies navigate complex challenges, the integration of these two distinct approaches offers both promising benefits and notable drawbacks.

On the positive side, one of the primary advantages of combining military and civilian leadership styles is enhanced decision-making. Military leaders are trained to make swift, decisive choices, particularly in high-pressure situations where lives are at stake. This decisiveness can be invaluable when quick action is necessary. Conversely, civilian leaders often excel in fostering collaboration and inclusivity, drawing on diverse perspectives to inform their decisions. By merging these strengths, organizations can achieve a more balanced approach—leveraging the military's ability to act decisively while ensuring that civilian insights contribute to well-rounded strategic planning.

Another significant benefit is the flexibility that hybrid leaders can bring to an organization. They can adapt their leadership style based on the context, employing military-style decisiveness during crises while embracing civilian participative methods for long-term planning. This versatility allows leaders to respond effectively to a wide range of situations, from urgent operational needs to complex policy discussions.

Moreover, the combination of these styles can improve team dynamics. Military leadership instills discipline and a clear sense of mission, while civilian leadership promotes teamwork and collaboration. This blend can create a cohesive and motivated workforce that understands both the importance of accountability and the value of collective input.

However, there are also notable challenges associated with this combination. One major drawback is the potential for cultural clashes between military and civilian leadership approaches. The rigid structure of military command may conflict with the more fluid and decentralized nature of civilian management, leading to misunderstandings or inefficiencies in communication and decision-making.

Additionally, incorporating civilian deliberation into traditionally directive military environments can slow down decision-making processes during critical moments. In situations that require immediate action, this delay could have serious consequences. Leaders must carefully navigate this balance to ensure that they do not sacrifice efficiency for inclusivity when time is of the essence.

Another concern is the risk of diluting core strengths inherent in each leadership style. Overemphasizing civilian management techniques in military contexts might undermine discipline and quick response capabilities, while excessive militarization in civilian settings could stifle innovation and creativity.

Finally, there may be credibility concerns among subordinates if they perceive inconsistencies in a leader's application of military or civilian principles. This perception can affect morale and trust within teams, making it essential for leaders to communicate clearly and maintain a consistent approach.

In conclusion, while combining military and civilian leadership styles offers significant advantages—such as improved decision-making, flexibility, and enhanced team dynamics—it also presents challenges related to cultural clashes, decision-making speed, potential dilution of strengths, and credibility issues. Successful integration requires thoughtful navigation of these complexities to harness the best aspects of both styles while mitigating their respective drawbacks. By doing so, organizations can position themselves for greater effectiveness in addressing modern challenges.

Democratic leaders foster teamwork and shared responsibility, encouraging diverse perspectives and creative solutions. This leadership style strengthens workplace relationships and trust among team members. Democratic leaders empower teams to develop problem-solving and critical thinking abilities. However, the participative approach can delay decisions, especially in crises or high-stakes situations. Misapplied democratic leadership may lead to conflicts or feelings of undervaluation among team members.

Democratic leaders face a range of challenges that stem from the participatory nature of democracy, the expectations of diverse constituencies, and the complexities of modern governance. These challenges are compounded by the need to balance inclusivity with decisiveness while addressing pressing issues such as security, inequality, and polarization.

One significant challenge is the difficulty of managing public trust in national security. Democratic leaders often struggle to convince voters that they are capable of protecting the nation, especially when compared to their opponents who may adopt more interventionist or aggressive stances. For example, surveys have shown that voters perceive Democrats as less "tough" on security issues, even though they align more closely with voters' values on these matters. This "security gap" creates a paradox: while voters favor leaders who share their worldview, they also demand a level of assertiveness that Democratic leaders may hesitate to display

Another challenge arises from the slow decision-making processes inherent in democratic leadership. By prioritizing collaboration and inclusivity, democratic leaders often face delays in reaching consensus, which can hinder their ability to respond swiftly to crises. This is particularly problematic in situations requiring urgent action, such as addressing political violence or managing international conflicts

Polarization and identity politics further complicate governance for democratic leaders. As societies become increasingly divided along ideological and cultural lines, leaders must navigate these divisions while fostering unity. The rise of authoritarian tendencies and populist movements exacerbates this issue, challenging democratic norms and making it harder for leaders to maintain stability

Economic inequality is another major obstacle. Democratic leaders must address disparities in wealth and opportunity while ensuring policies remain equitable and sustainable. Failing to tackle inequality can erode public trust in democratic institutions and fuel discontent among marginalized groups

Finally, democratic leaders must contend with external threats such as terrorism, cyberattacks, and geopolitical instability. These challenges require balancing diplomatic efforts with military preparedness while maintaining transparency and accountability. For instance, modern national security strategies emphasize intelligence sharing and infrastructure defense, but implementing these measures effectively requires overcoming bureaucratic inefficiencies and partisan divides

Democratic leaders face unique challenges rooted in the principles of democracy itself—balancing inclusivity with decisiveness, navigating polarization, addressing inequality, and managing security concerns. Success depends on their ability to adapt to these demands while maintaining public trust and upholding democratic values.

So, which one is better: a military-civilian leader or a democratic-civilian leader? The question of whether a military-civilian leader or a democratic-civilian leader is better depends on the context and the specific challenges being addressed. Both types of leadership bring unique strengths and weaknesses, and their effectiveness often hinges on the environment in which they operate and the demands of the situation.

A military-civilian leader combines the decisiveness, discipline, and operational efficiency of military leadership with the broader perspective of civilian governance. This hybrid approach can be particularly effective in high-pressure situations requiring quick decision-making, such as crisis management or security-related operations. Military-civilian leaders excel in environments where strict hierarchy and clear chains of command are necessary to maintain order and achieve objectives. Their ability to handle high-stakes scenarios with resilience and focus is a significant advantage.

However, this leadership style can face limitations in civilian contexts. The rigid structure and directive communication typical of military leadership may clash with the more collaborative and flexible nature of civilian organizations. Additionally, the emphasis on discipline and uniformity might stifle creativity and innovation, which are often critical in civilian governance. Military-civilian leaders may also struggle to navigate complex political dynamics or foster inclusivity, which are essential for long-term stability in democratic systems.

A democratic-civilian leader emphasizes participative decision-making, inclusivity, and collaboration—qualities that align closely with the principles of democracy. This leadership style fosters innovation, empowers diverse teams, and builds trust among stakeholders. Democratic-civilian leaders are particularly effective in environments that require long-term strategic planning, complex negotiations, or adaptability to diverse perspectives.

The main strength of democratic-civilian leaders lies in their ability to unite people across ideological divides and create policies that reflect collective values. Their focus on inclusivity makes them well-suited for addressing societal challenges such as inequality, polarization, and identity politics. However, this approach can also lead to slower decision-making processes, which may be problematic during crises or urgent situations. Democratic-civilian leaders must balance deliberation with decisiveness to avoid inefficiencies.

So, which is Better?

Neither type is inherently "better" across all contexts; their effectiveness depends on the situation: "Military-Civilian Leaders are better suited for crisis management, security operations, or environments requiring rapid action and discipline; Democratic-Civilian Leaders excel in fostering collaboration, addressing societal issues, managing diversity, and ensuring long-term stability"

In many cases, a combination of both styles—a leader who integrates military decisiveness with democratic collaboration—may be optimal. Such a hybrid leader can adapt to different scenarios by leveraging the strengths of both approaches while mitigating their weaknesses. For instance, they could employ military-style decisiveness during emergencies while embracing democratic inclusivity for policy development.

Ultimately, the best leadership style is one that aligns with the specific needs of the organization or society at a given time (Contextual Leadership). Leaders who can balance decisiveness with collaboration while maintaining accountability to democratic principles are likely to succeed in navigating modern challenges effectively.

[Episode 3]
[Episode 1]

Bahasa

Challenges for the Civilian Leaders (3)

The news is like this. In a shocking turn of events, the Indonesian government has officially passed the Asset Confiscation Law for citizens, allowing authorities to seize motor vehicles from those who fail to pay taxes for two years. Meanwhile, the long-awaited Asset Forfeiture Law targeting corrupt officials remains in legislative limbo.
Lawmakers proudly announced their innovative approach to boosting state revenue: confiscating vehicles from citizens struggling to pay taxes. “Why bother chasing corruptors hiding behind piles of stolen money? It’s much easier to take cars from people who didn’t pay their taxes!” exclaimed one enthusiastic member of parliament.

Under this new law, old cars and dusty motorcycles are now prime targets for tax officers. “We’re not just confiscating vehicles; we’re also taking away their hopes of going to the market or work,” added another legislator with a wide grin. “This is a progressive step toward raising tax awareness among the public!”

Meanwhile, corrupt officials who have drained billions from the nation’s coffers continue to roam freely, enjoying the fruits of others’ labor. “We’ll deal with them later,” said a high-ranking official. “Right now, we need to focus on unregistered cars and motorcycles that haven’t paid taxes. They’re much easier to catch!”

On the ground, citizens are already feeling the impact. Many families now have no choice but to walk to work or rely on inadequate public transportation. “We may have lost our car, but at least we’re getting fit!” joked one optimistic housewife, although her face betrayed her frustration.

This regulation has a clear legal foundation in Law No. 22 of 2009 concerning Traffic and Road Transportation and Police Regulation No. 7 of 2021. It aims to ensure the legality of motor vehicles and enhance tax compliance. Before a seizure occurs, three warnings are issued to vehicle owners to renew their STNK, providing ample time for individuals to fulfill their obligations.

While this regulation has a legal basis and clear procedures, its implementation needs to consider social justice aspects, especially for economically disadvantaged groups. Additionally, the prioritization of legislation concerning the seizure of citizens' assets over that targeting corruptors also influences public perception of government policies. The regulation may be seen as unfair to low-income individuals who struggle to pay annual vehicle taxes. They risk losing an important asset without consideration of their economic circumstances.

The deletion of vehicle registration data after seizure makes it impossible for the owner to re-register the vehicle, potentially adding administrative burdens for those wishing to reclaim their vehicles.

Criticism arises due to the focus on seizing citizens' assets being contrasted with the slow progress in passing the Asset Forfeiture Law for corrupt officials. This raises perceptions that the government is stricter on minor violations than on major crimes like corruption.

While the regulation aims to improve tax compliance and manage vehicle data effectively, its negative impacts can be significant for individuals and society.

Confiscation means the owner loses access to a valuable asset, which can disrupt daily mobility and activities. Owners must bear extra costs to reclaim their confiscated vehicles, including fines and administrative fees to retrieve their vehicle registration documents (STNK and BPKB).

If the vehicle registration is expired, insurance claims become difficult or even impossible, leaving owners to cover repair costs themselves in case of damage. Vehicles with expired registration are considered illegal, potentially leading to further legal issues for the owner.

The confiscation of many vehicles may lead to a rise in unregistered or illegal vehicles on the road, which can pose safety and security risks.

The process of confiscating and deleting vehicle data requires resources from government agencies and law enforcement, potentially straining public administration systems.

This policy may create a negative perception among the public regarding tax obligations, especially if it is seen as overly harsh or unfair.

The negative impacts on police institutions due to the confiscation of vehicles for unpaid taxes can be significant, particularly concerning the potential for misconduct among officers.

There is a risk that some officers may exploit the vehicle confiscation process for personal gain. This could manifest as bribery or the unauthorized sale of confiscated vehicles, undermining public trust in law enforcement. If instances of corruption or abuse of power become known, it can lead to a general distrust of the police. Citizens may feel that law enforcement is more focused on revenue generation than on maintaining public safety and order.

The implementation of vehicle confiscation policies requires significant administrative and operational resources. If not managed properly, this could lead to inefficiencies and a diversion of police focus from core duties such as crime prevention and community engagement.

Confiscations that are perceived as unjust or mishandled can result in legal challenges against the police. This not only consumes resources but also damages the reputation of the institution. If officers are pressured to meet quotas for vehicle confiscations or fines, it may lead to job dissatisfaction and ethical dilemmas among law enforcement personnel.

While the intent behind vehicle confiscation policies may be to enforce tax compliance, the potential for corruption and other negative consequences can significantly affect police institutions and their relationship with the community.

Several developed countries, i.e. the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Germany, have implemented similar regulations regarding the seizure of vehicles for unpaid taxes or registration issues. However, the specific regulations and procedures can vary significantly between jurisdictions, reflecting local legal standards and enforcement practices.

The credibility of police institutions in developed countries that implement vehicle seizure laws for unpaid taxes is generally perceived as higher than in many developing nations. In contrast, Indonesia faces challenges regarding police credibility, with a significant portion of the population expressing distrust towards law enforcement. Approximately 43% of Indonesians do not trust the police, which can hinder effective law enforcement and compliance with regulations. Factors contributing to this distrust include allegations of corruption, human rights violations, and a lack of accountability within the police force.

Indonesia's decision to implement vehicle seizure for unpaid taxes amid economic hardship raises significant concerns about timing and fairness. While similar regulations exist in developed countries, the socio-economic context in Indonesia makes this policy potentially problematic.

The increase in VAT to 12% in 2025 has already burdened households, particularly low- and middle-income groups, as prices for basic goods like rice and cooking oil continue to rise. Small businesses and individuals are struggling with reduced purchasing power and higher production costs, making it difficult to meet financial obligations.

Vehicle seizure disproportionately affects lower-income citizens who rely on their vehicles for work and daily activities. Without mechanisms for tax relief or installment payments, this policy risks deepening social inequality.

Many families rely on their vehicles for daily commuting to work or running small businesses. The confiscation of a vehicle can lead to a direct loss of income, making it difficult for families to meet their financial obligations.

Families may face additional costs related to reclaiming confiscated vehicles, including fines and administrative fees. This financial strain can exacerbate existing economic challenges, particularly for lower-income households.

Without access to their vehicles, families may struggle with transportation for essential activities such as grocery shopping, medical appointments, and school runs. This can lead to increased time and costs associated with finding alternative transportation.

The inability to travel freely can result in social isolation, as families may find it challenging to participate in community activities or maintain social connections without reliable transportation.

The threat of vehicle confiscation can create significant stress and anxiety among families, particularly those already facing financial difficulties. Concerns about losing a primary means of transportation can impact mental health and overall well-being.

For many lower-income families, the loss of a vehicle can push them deeper into poverty, as they may struggle to find alternative means of earning a living without reliable transportation.

The policy may disproportionately affect lower-income families who may already be struggling with tax payments. In contrast, wealthier individuals or businesses might have more resources to navigate tax obligations without facing similar penalties.

The confiscation of vehicles due to unpaid taxes poses serious risks to family economies, potentially leading to increased financial strain, reduced mobility, and heightened stress levels. Policymakers should consider these impacts and implement measures that protect vulnerable populations from excessive burdens.

Given the current economic instability, implementing such a policy may exacerbate financial struggles for many families. Experts suggest that alternative measures, such as tax forgiveness programs or flexible payment plans, could be more equitable during times of economic difficulty. While ensuring tax compliance is undeniably important, the timing and implementation of this regulation must take into account Indonesia's current economic hardships to prevent exacerbating inequality and fueling public discontent. Although this law is inherited from the previous administration, it carries significant risks for President Prabowo; rather than generating the intended benefits of increased tax revenue, it could spark widespread dissatisfaction among the populace.

Now, let's continue with our topic!

In recent years, Indonesia has witnessed a concerning trend where media and surveyors play a significant role in shaping the perception of political popularity, often manufacturing an image of popularity for certain figures who may not genuinely enjoy widespread public support. This phenomenon is closely tied to the rise of digital manipulation and the strategic use of media to control narratives. Political elites and their campaign teams have increasingly relied on "buzzers"—paid social media influencers or digital operatives—to amplify specific narratives, promote favored candidates, and suppress dissenting voices. These actors create an illusion of popularity by flooding online spaces with coordinated content that portrays certain individuals as highly favored by the public, even when this sentiment is not reflective of reality.

This manufactured popularity is further reinforced by surveys that are sometimes perceived as biased or manipulated. Polling organizations, whether intentionally or under pressure, may present results that favor particular candidates, thereby influencing public perception. In Indonesia’s political landscape, where social media plays a dominant role in shaping opinions, such tactics can have a profound impact. By presenting a candidate as popular or leading in polls, these narratives create a "bandwagon effect," encouraging undecided voters to support the perceived frontrunner.

In Indonesia, buzzerp—paid social media operatives—have become a powerful force in shaping public opinion, particularly during elections. These individuals or groups are hired to amplify political messages, manipulate narratives, and influence perceptions through coordinated online campaigns. Using fake accounts and posing as ordinary users, buzzers flood social media platforms with posts, hashtags, likes, and comments that appear organic but are strategically crafted to sway public sentiment.

Buzzers often disseminate disinformation or misleading content to confuse the public, tarnish reputations, and silence criticism. Their tactics include smear campaigns against opponents, boosting favorable narratives for their clients, and drowning out dissenting voices. For example, in the 2024 presidential election, buzzers were instrumental in creating a perception of widespread support for certain candidates by amplifying their campaigns online.

This practice has deeply entrenched itself in Indonesia’s political culture, posing significant threats to democracy. By distorting the information landscape and suppressing organic discourse, buzzers undermine public trust in institutions and create an unfair playing field for political competition. Despite growing public awareness of their influence, effective institutional responses remain limited. Buzzers continue to operate openly as part of a lucrative industry, further normalizing their role in manipulating electoral outcomes.

Popularity in politics carries both advantages and disadvantages, shaping the dynamics of governance, public trust, and democratic processes. On the positive side, popularity reflects public approval and serves as a measure of legitimacy for leaders and policies. In democracies, popular leaders are often seen as representatives of the people’s will, which reinforces the principle of governance by consent. Popularity also enables leaders to rally support for policies, making it easier to implement initiatives that address societal needs. Additionally, it can inspire civic engagement as citizens feel more connected to leaders they admire or trust.

However, popularity has significant downsides. It can be superficial and manipulated, particularly through media or polling tactics that create the illusion of widespread support. For instance, as seen in Indonesia and elsewhere, media campaigns or biased surveys can manufacture popularity for certain figures, distorting public perception and undermining genuine democratic choice. This can lead to a "bandwagon effect," where people support candidates simply because they are perceived as popular rather than critically evaluating their qualifications or policies.

Moreover, excessive focus on popularity can shift attention away from substantive governance to image management. Leaders may prioritize short-term approval over long-term solutions, avoiding difficult but necessary decisions that could harm their public standing. Popularity-driven politics also risks polarizing societies, as leaders may cater exclusively to their base while ignoring minority voices.

While popularity is essential for democratic legitimacy and mobilizing support, its manipulation and overemphasis can erode trust in institutions and weaken the quality of governance. A balance between public approval and principled leadership is crucial for a healthy democracy.

While popularity is an important factor in democratic elections, it is not the sole criterion for choosing leaders like presidents or senators. Democracies require a more comprehensive evaluation of candidates to ensure effective governance and uphold democratic principles. Beyond popularity, several key qualities and considerations play a critical role in selecting leaders.

First, competence and expertise are essential. Leaders must possess the knowledge, skills, and experience necessary to address complex national and global challenges. Their ability to craft sound policies, manage crises, and lead effectively should weigh heavily in voters' decisions. A leader’s track record, including past achievements and demonstrated problem-solving abilities, provides valuable insight into their potential effectiveness.

Second, integrity and ethical behavior are vital. In a democracy, leaders are entrusted with significant power and responsibility. Their honesty, transparency, and commitment to the public good help build trust between the government and the people. Corruption or unethical behavior can erode democratic institutions and undermine public confidence.

Third, vision and leadership style matter significantly. A strong leader should articulate a clear vision for the future that resonates with citizens' aspirations while fostering inclusivity and collaboration. Democratic leadership emphasizes participation, encouraging diverse perspectives in decision-making processes. Leaders who adopt this approach can inspire collective action and innovation while ensuring that all voices are heard.

Finally, commitment to democratic values is non-negotiable. Leaders must respect the rule of law, uphold human rights, and work to strengthen democratic institutions. They should prioritize accountability and fairness while resisting authoritarian tendencies or divisive rhetoric that could polarize society.

In summary, while popularity often determines electoral success in democracies, it must be complemented by competence, integrity, vision, and a commitment to democratic principles. These qualities ensure that leaders not only win elections but also govern effectively in the best interests of their people.

If one or more of the critical criteria for selecting leaders in a democracy—such as competence, integrity, vision, or commitment to democratic values—are neglected, the consequences can be severe and far-reaching. When leaders are chosen based solely on popularity or superficial traits, the quality of governance often suffers, leading to inefficiencies, erosion of trust, and even democratic backsliding.

Neglecting competence results in leaders who may lack the knowledge or skills to address complex challenges effectively. This can lead to poor decision-making, mismanagement of resources, and an inability to respond to crises. For example, in emergencies where decisive and informed action is required, an unqualified leader may exacerbate problems rather than resolve them

If integrity is overlooked, corruption and unethical behavior can flourish. Leaders without moral accountability may prioritize personal gain or political survival over the public good. This undermines trust in government institutions and fosters cynicism among citizens, weakening the foundation of democracy.

A democratic leader refers to someone who adopts a participative leadership style that emphasizes collaboration, mutual respect, and shared decision-making. Democratic leadership is rooted in the principles of democracy—government by the people—and is characterized by inclusivity and collective problem-solving. A democratic leader can be a military man, provided they operates within democratic principles and structures. For example, military personnel have successfully transitioned to leadership roles in democratic systems, such as Dwight D. Eisenhower, a former U.S. general who became President through democratic elections. However, challenges arise when military leaders retain authoritarian tendencies or prioritize military interests over civilian governance.

A civilian leader is an individual who holds leadership roles within government or public service but is not part of the military. Civilian leaders include elected officials, political appointees, and senior civil servants responsible for policymaking, governance, and national security oversight. Their authority derives from constitutional and legal frameworks, often emphasizing accountability to the electorate or broader democratic principles. A civilian leader can be a retired military man if they have left active service and transitioned into civilian life. In many democracies, retired military leaders often take on civilian roles, including political positions or public service. For example, in the U.S., retired generals can hold civilian leadership roles like Secretary of Defense, but legal frameworks often require them to be retired for a certain period (e.g., seven years under the National Security Act of 1947) to ensure civilian control of the military.

In both cases, adherence to democratic norms and separation from active military duties are crucial to maintaining democratic governance and preventing the politicization of the armed forces. While civilian leadership and democratic leadership overlap in democracies, they are not inherently the same. Civilian leaders can operate under various leadership styles (e.g., authoritarian or laissez-faire), depending on their approach to governance. Democratic leaders specifically focus on participative methods and fostering collaboration among stakeholders.

In the next episode, we will discuss the challenges facing both civil and democratic leaders. Before we go, listen to an Ode by Horace,

Virtus repulsae nescia sordidae

[Virtue, unaware of disgraceful defeat]

Intaminatis fulget honoribus,

[shines with untarnished honor,]

Nec sumit aut ponit secures

[and does not take up or lay down the axe of power]

Arbitrio popularis aurae.

[at the whim of the shifting popular breeze.]

(Odes 3.2.17-20)

[Episode 4]

[Episode 2]

Bahasa

Challenges for the Civilian Leaders (2)

Continuing our exploration of the question posed in our previous session—“Should we prepare our country to become a military state?”—is a multifaceted endeavour. This inquiry is intricately woven into the fabric of historical context, geopolitical dynamics, and the priorities of internal governance. While national security remains a paramount concern, the path of militarization often entails substantial economic and political trade-offs that cannot be overlooked. Balancing these factors requires careful consideration and a nuanced understanding of their implications for our society and future.

Historically, democracies have maintained strong militaries without fully transforming into military states. Countries like the United States, India, and France have robust defence sectors while still prioritizing democratic values. The key is to balance security preparedness with the preservation of civil liberties, economic stability, and diplomatic engagement.

In democratic societies, maintaining a clear distinction between military and police roles is essential to uphold civil supremacy and democratic governance. The military is primarily tasked with defending the nation against external threats, while the police are responsible for maintaining internal order and enforcing laws.

In The Perils of Praetorianism in Latin America (2002, Penn State University Press), Kirk S. Bowman examines the negative effects of military influence on democratic institutions and development. Bowman argues that excessive military involvement in politics erodes democratic norms by undermining civilian control of the government. This often leads to the militarization of policymaking and governance, limiting democratic accountability.

Military interventions, whether through direct coups or behind-the-scenes influence, create cycles of instability where elected governments struggle to function effectively. This instability discourages long-term democratic development.

Under military-influenced regimes, freedoms such as free speech, press, and political participation are often curtailed. This weakens civil society and makes it harder for democratic institutions to flourish.

Bowman highlights how militarized governments often prioritize security spending over economic and social development. This can lead to inefficient resource allocation, economic stagnation, and increased inequality.

Military influence in politics often results in legal impunity for the armed forces, weakening judicial independence and the enforcement of laws. This undermines trust in democratic governance.

Even after military rule ends, its legacy can persist in weakened institutions, polarized societies, and recurring authoritarian tendencies. Bowman suggests that countries with strong military influence take longer to develop stable democratic systems.

In A Violent Peace: Race, U.S. Militarism, and Cultures of Democratization in Cold War Asia and the Pacific (2020, Stanford University Press), Christine Hong examines the intricate relationship between postwar U.S. military strategies and democratization efforts in Asia and the Pacific. She argues that the United States' promotion of democracy in the region was deeply entwined with militaristic endeavours, often leading to outcomes that contradicted the democratic ideals professed.​

Hong highlights how the U.S. occupation of Japan serves as a prime example of this complex dynamic. While the occupation aimed to establish democratic institutions, it simultaneously imposed military control, reflecting a paradox where democratization was pursued through authoritarian means. This approach often prioritized strategic interests over genuine democratic development, leading to tensions between the imposed political structures and the local populations' aspirations.​

Furthermore, Hong explores the racial dimensions of U.S. militarism, illustrating how racial ideologies influenced military policies and interactions with local communities. The desegregation of the U.S. military, for instance, was portrayed as a step toward racial equality and democratic progress. However, this narrative often masked the underlying imperialistic motives and the continuation of racial hierarchies, both abroad and within the United States.​

In the context of the Korean War, Hong discusses how U.S. military interventions were framed as efforts to defend and promote democracy. Yet, these actions frequently resulted in significant civilian casualties and the suppression of local movements that sought alternative political pathways, thereby undermining the democratic principles the U.S. claimed to support.​

Hong also addresses the domestic implications of these military strategies, noting that tactics used to control populations abroad were mirrored in the suppression of dissent within the United States. The militarization of police forces and the surveillance of civil rights activists reflected a broader pattern where militaristic approaches to governance impacted both foreign and domestic policies.​

In summary, A Violent Peace reveals that postwar U.S. military strategies in Asia and the Pacific often compromised democratization efforts, as military objectives took precedence over the establishment of genuine democratic institutions. This interplay between militarization and democratization highlights the contradictions inherent in U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War era.

In Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (2024, Haymarket Books), Noam Chomsky critically examines how the United States' pursuit of global hegemony through military means has shaped international relations and affected democratic movements worldwide. Chomsky argues that the U.S. government's aggressive strategies to maintain dominance often undermine international law, destabilize regions, and suppress democratic aspirations.​

Chomsky highlights instances where the U.S. disregards international bodies when they oppose its objectives. For example, after the International Court of Justice condemned U.S. actions in Nicaragua, the U.S. dismissed the ruling, labeling the court as a "hostile forum." This behavior, Chomsky suggests, erodes the credibility of international institutions and sets a precedent for unilateral actions. ​

He critiques the U.S. adoption of preventive war—a strategy of initiating conflict to eliminate perceived future threats—as a violation of international norms. Chomsky contends that such actions, exemplified by the 2003 invasion of Iraq, constitute war crimes and destabilize global order by promoting the use of force over diplomacy. ​

The pursuit of military dominance, including initiatives like the militarization of space and opposition to arms control treaties, is seen by Chomsky as exacerbating global tensions and sparking arms races. These policies, he argues, prioritize power projection over cooperative security measures, increasing the risk of conflict. ​

Chomsky documents instances where the U.S. has supported authoritarian governments that align with its strategic interests, often at the expense of democratic movements. By providing military aid and political backing to such regimes, the U.S. hinders the development of democratic institutions and suppresses grassroots movements advocating for change.​

Direct interventions, both overt and covert, have been employed to overthrow democratically elected governments perceived as threats to U.S. hegemony. These actions not only disrupt the political sovereignty of nations but also serve as warnings to other countries considering policies independent of U.S. influence.​

The global emphasis on military solutions and the war on terror, as discussed by Chomsky, have led to the curtailment of civil liberties both domestically and internationally. Governments, under the guise of security, implement measures that restrict freedoms, thereby weakening the democratic fabric of societies.​

Chomsky's analysis suggests that the U.S.'s militaristic quest for dominance not only strains international relations but also poses significant obstacles to the growth and sustainability of democratic movements worldwide.

In democratic societies, maintaining a clear distinction between military and police roles is essential to uphold civil supremacy and democratic governance. The military is primarily tasked with defending the nation against external threats, while the police are responsible for maintaining internal order and enforcing laws.

The military should focus on national defense and operate under the direction of civilian authorities. Their involvement in civilian governance should be minimal to prevent the erosion of democratic institutions. According to the Handbook on Civil-Military Relations and Democratic Control of the Security Sector (2003, Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces), effective democratic control requires that the armed forces remain under the authority of elected civilian officials, ensuring that military influence does not overshadow civilian governance.

Recent developments in Indonesia highlight the importance of maintaining these distinctions. The passage of a law allowing military personnel to hold a broader range of civilian positions has raised concerns about a potential resurgence of military influence in government, reminiscent of past authoritarian rule. Critics argue that such moves could undermine democratic institutions and civil supremacy.

To preserve democracy and ensure civil supremacy, the military should be confined to roles directly related to national defense under civilian oversight, while the police should focus on maintaining internal order and enforcing laws with a commitment to democratic principles and human rights.

The police serve as the primary interface between the government and its citizens, tasked with upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights. They should operate with transparency, accountability, and respect for human rights. As noted in The Role of Police in a Democratic Society (1969, Northwestern University School of Law), the police have a policymaking responsibility and should not merely follow orders without considering their impact on democratic processes.

In Indonesia, the proposed Indonesian National Police Bill (RUU Polri) has raised concerns among civil society organizations and legal experts, primarily due to its potential to transform the National Police (Polri) into a "superbody" with expansive powers.​

The bill grants Polri authority over cyberspaces, including the power to conduct surveillance, impose sanctions, block or slow down internet access, and enforce cyber security measures. This broad authority lacks clear parameters and oversight mechanisms, raising fears of potential misuse to suppress freedom of expression and control information flow.

Polri would be empowered to conduct intelligence operations, including collecting data from other intelligence agencies such as the State Intelligence Agency (BIN), the National Cyber and Crypto Agency (BSSN), and the Strategic Intelligence Agency of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (BAIS). This could lead to overlapping functions and potential misuse of intelligence for purposes beyond national security.

The bill provides Polri with wiretapping capabilities without a clear regulatory framework or oversight, raising concerns about violations of privacy rights. Unlike the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), which requires approval from its supervisory board for wiretapping, Polri's authority in this area would be unchecked.

Polri would have the authority to oversee and recommend the appointment of civil servant investigators (PPNS) and other investigators, potentially undermining the independence of agencies like the KPK.

The bill proposes the formation of community security forces under Polri's guidance, reminiscent of past practices that led to human rights violations. This raises concerns about the potential for abuse and the revival of controversial security practices. ​

Critics warn that these expanded powers could undermine democratic principles and civil liberties. The extensive powers granted to Polri, particularly in cyber surveillance and control, pose a threat to freedom of expression, press, and privacy. Such measures could suppress dissent and limit citizens' ability to access and share information freely. ​

The bill lacks robust oversight mechanisms for Polri's expanded powers, increasing the risk of abuse and impunity. This undermines democratic principles that rely on checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power. ​

The potential for human rights violations resulting from unchecked police powers could damage Indonesia's international standing. Countries and international organizations may view these developments as a regression in democratic governance and human rights protection, affecting diplomatic relations and foreign investment.

While the RUU Polri aims to enhance national security, its provisions risk undermining civil liberties, democratic oversight, and Indonesia's international reputation. Lawmakers must reconsider the bill's content, ensuring that any expansion of police powers is accompanied by stringent oversight and accountability measures to protect the rights and freedoms of Indonesian citizens.

The enactment of the Indonesian National Police Bill (RUU Polri), which significantly expands the powers of the police, could have negative effects on international trust and the investment climate in Indonesia.

The expansion of police authority, which could turn Polri into a "superbody," raises concerns about Indonesia’s commitment to democracy and human rights. Powers such as cyber surveillance, internet restrictions, and wiretapping—without clear oversight—may be perceived as repressive measures that limit freedom of expression and individual privacy. This could damage Indonesia’s reputation in the eyes of the international community and human rights organizations, leading to increased criticism and diplomatic pressure.

Foreign investors typically seek a stable, transparent, and legally secure environment. The implementation of the RUU Polri, with its broad and unchecked authority, may create legal uncertainty and increase investment risks. Concerns about potential abuse of power, human rights violations, and lack of accountability may lead investors to reconsider their decisions to invest in Indonesia. Additionally, a negative perception of Indonesia’s political and legal situation could lower the country’s competitiveness in the global investment market.

The expansion of Polri’s powers in the bill could create overlapping responsibilities among institutions and trigger unwanted power conflicts, giving the impression of forming a super-powerful police force.

Implementing the RUU Polri without strong oversight and accountability mechanisms could harm Indonesia’s international reputation and weaken investor confidence. Therefore, the government and legislature must carefully consider these broader impacts and ensure that any legal changes align with democratic principles, human rights protections, and legal certainty to support a conducive investment climate.

If a democratic country were to prepare itself for a more militarized stance, several factors must be considered. A military buildup should be driven by genuine security threats rather than internal power consolidation. When militarization becomes excessive, it risks undermining democratic institutions, as seen in nations where military influence extends into civilian governance.

A highly militarized state often diverts significant resources toward defence at the cost of education, healthcare, and social welfare. While military investment can spur technological innovation (as seen in the U.S.), an overemphasis can lead to economic inefficiencies and public dissatisfaction.

Nations facing external threats may find it necessary to strengthen their military. However, an arms race or aggressive military posture can escalate tensions rather than ensure long-term security. A diplomatic approach—while maintaining a capable defence force—often proves more sustainable.

A democracy preparing for militarization must establish safeguards to prevent the erosion of civil rights. If military authority begins to outweigh elected governance, a country may slide into authoritarianism, diminishing democratic freedoms.

Ultimately, a democratic country should ensure national security without compromising its core values. Investing in a strong military is wise, but it should be complemented with diplomatic engagement, technological advancements, and economic resilience. Militarization should serve as a means of defense, not a tool for political dominance.

We are entering a period of great transformation. Power will no longer be measured only in military strength but in who controls global supply chains, who owns the most advanced technology, and who dominates the financial networks of the future.

This means that nations, corporations, and even individuals will need to adapt quickly. Governments will invest heavily in AI, cybersecurity, and energy independence. Businesses will shift their focus toward digital finance and automation. Ordinary people will have to navigate a world where traditional jobs disappear, economic power shifts rapidly, and financial systems evolve in unpredictable ways.

The future will not be about which nation has the most soldiers, but about who has the most control over the infrastructure of global power. The new world order is not a return to military empires, but the rise of technological, financial, and energy-based empires.

In "Power Shift: The Global Political Economy of Energy Transitions" (2021, Cambridge University Press), Peter Newell examines how changes in energy production and consumption reshape economic and political power globally. He emphasizes that energy transitions are not just technological shifts but also involve significant political and economic transformations. These transitions can alter the distribution of power among nations, influence global trade patterns, and impact domestic policies. Newell argues that understanding these dynamics is crucial for navigating the complexities of moving towards sustainable energy systems. ​

In "The World Under Pressure: How China and India Are Influencing the Global Economy and Environment" (2012, Stanford University Press), Carl J. Dahlman examines the profound effects of the rapid economic growth of China and India on various global dimensions, including trade, technology, environment, security, and governance structures.

Newell's analysis highlights that energy transitions are deeply intertwined with issues of governance, equity, and justice. He suggests that the move towards renewable energy sources presents both opportunities and challenges, particularly concerning who benefits from these changes and who may be disadvantaged. By examining these aspects, Newell provides a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted impacts of energy transitions on global political and economic structures.

The ascent of China and India has significantly altered global trade dynamics. Their expanding economies have increased demand for resources and diversified export markets, leading to shifts in trade balances and the emergence of new economic alliances. This transformation challenges established trade relationships and necessitates adaptations in global trade policies.

Both nations have prioritized technological advancement as a cornerstone of their development strategies. By investing heavily in research and development, they have not only enhanced their domestic industries but also contributed to global technological innovation. This progress fosters competition and collaboration on the international stage, influencing global technology standards and practices.

The environmental implications of rapid industrialization in China and India are profound. Increased industrial activities and energy consumption have escalated pollution levels and intensified resource depletion. These environmental challenges have far-reaching consequences, affecting global climate patterns and prompting international discussions on sustainable development and environmental responsibility.

The growing economic and political influence of China and India has implications for global security. Their expanding interests necessitate a reevaluation of regional and international security arrangements. This shift can lead to both cooperation and competition, influencing geopolitical strategies and alliances worldwide.

Dahlman highlights that the rise of these two nations places considerable pressure on existing global governance frameworks. The current international system faces challenges in accommodating the interests and influences of emerging powers, leading to calls for reforms in institutions like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and International Monetary Fund to better reflect the contemporary global power distribution.

Dahlman underscores that the rapid economic growth of China and India is reshaping global systems, introducing both opportunities and challenges across multiple sectors. He advocates for proactive adjustments in international policies and governance structures to effectively manage these shifts and promote global stability and sustainability.Dahlman menggarisbawahi bahwa pertumbuhan ekonomi yang pesat di Tiongkok dan India tengah membentuk kembali sistem global, yang menghadirkan peluang dan tantangan di berbagai sektor. Ia menganjurkan penyesuaian proaktif dalam kebijakan internasional dan struktur tata kelola untuk mengelola perubahan ini secara efektif dan mendorong stabilitas dan keberlanjutan global.

In a world increasingly leaning towards militarism, as we've discussed, is there still a need for civilian leaders, or should they be replaced by military commanders?

While military leaders bring expertise in strategy, discipline, and crisis management, democratic systems fundamentally rely on civilian leadership to ensure accountability, inclusivity, and adherence to the rule of law.

Civilian leaders are essential in maintaining democratic control over the military. As highlighted in civil-military relations theory, civilian supremacy ensures that the military remains a servant of the state rather than a dominant force capable of overriding democratic institutions. Civilian leaders are tasked with balancing military advice with broader societal considerations, including economic policy, human rights, and diplomatic efforts. Their role is critical in preventing the militarization of governance, which can lead to authoritarianism or a narrow focus on security at the expense of other priorities.

However, as militarism grows, civilian leaders face challenges in maintaining effective control. Studies show that civilian leadership often struggles with expertise gaps in national security policy, leading to heavy reliance on military elites. This reliance risks undermining civilian authority and allowing military perspectives to dominate strategic decision-making. For example, modern technologies like artificial intelligence and hypersonic weapons blur the lines between civilian oversight and military operations, requiring close collaboration but also exposing vulnerabilities in traditional civilian control frameworks.

Replacing civilian leaders with military ones could exacerbate these issues by concentrating power within a single institution. Military leadership tends to prioritize efficiency and order but may lack the broader perspective needed for democratic governance. Historical examples demonstrate that when military leaders assume political control, democratic norms often erode, as seen in military regimes that suppress dissent and limit political freedoms. While military leaders excel in operational contexts, they may struggle with the complexities of balancing diverse societal needs.

While militarism poses significant challenges for democratic governance, civilian leadership remains indispensable for upholding democratic values and ensuring balanced decision-making. The solution lies not in replacing civilian leaders but in fostering stronger civil-military relationships where trust, expertise-sharing, and mutual respect enable effective governance in an increasingly militarized world.

[Episode 3]

[Episode 1]

Bahasa