The basic principle of democracy – "from the people, by the people, and for the people" – is actually confusing, if not misleading, in its implementation.

This is because "the people" – the main idea of the principle that has been turned into a slogan – is reduced from its great meaning as contained in the original idea, as well as in actual reality.

The practical definition of the word "from" has been brought into existence only in reference to "votes". It is a kind of materialization of the abstract rights of the people, individuals that have been twisted into a constant element in the need to determine the key measure of democracy: the general elections! Individuals as the subject that collectively comprises "the people" have become denigrated in meaning and substance when they are transformed into abstract – even absurd – "units" (numbers/figures) for the sake of the machines that calculate the validity of democracy.

So, too, is the term "by", which simply refers to the concept of "political representation". The representation of a collective unit then becomes the basis of legitimizing the parties/people that represent them "politically" in the legislature and other government institutions. The people themselves are minimized, as they are absent from government work, substituted by representatives who – in reality – have almost no moral or formal responsibilities to the people they represent.

Meanwhile, "for" becomes diminished in meaning and wisdom when the majority of the people become the minority among those who benefit from the government's development programs – compared to the rich (businessmen), state officials or the elite that comprise less than 2 percent of the population.

Therefore, the slogan of democracy is only "right and good" in theory: It may look ideal on paper, but it is built on lies. This is especially evident when we examine more carefully what happens when the government, the main product of democracy, runs its bureaucratic machinery. The effect of this stunting only grows stronger because the government plays at psycho-governance in order to gain the position of "problem solver" in everything, whether social, national, statehood or other.

It cannot be denied that what is called "government" – from whatever age – manages, if not (it feels it) controls almost all dimensions of life in a nation (people). The late President Abdurrahman Wahid had actually proposed a policy with a strong and correct vision, that many matters like religion and sociality should be separate from government. However, the proposal was eventually defeated by non-visionary, even ambiguous, arguments and strong ambitions for political power.

Therefore, every inch of our lives in all directions of the compass is under the supervision, even control, of the power that the government holds tightly. So essentially, modern (democratic) government is totalitarian, except in the matter of succession, with a nature and character that are not much different from that of a monarchy. I believe this is the case in nearly all parts of the world where democracy is wielded as a (propagandistic) means of politicizing or managing a country. Donald Trump and the US, without requiring any proof, could be the most apt example, if it cannot be said to be the most tragic.

A paralyzed state

The tragic impact of the government's nurtural and instinctive lust to lead by dominating all dimensions of people's lives, as was written in "Becoming a New Indonesia" (Kompas, Dec. 4, 2018), is the paralysis, even death, of citizens' initiatives. With all the instruments of power that (it feels) it possesses, the government will suppress any power or force it deems able to challenge, let alone undermine, its dominance.

Domination has become the sine qua non of the government's lust to be the sole and greatest power in all matters, even at the personal level. Remember that the world's most respected intelligence service, the National Security Agency (NSA) that was established by the 32nd president of the United States, F.D. Roosevelt, made the government of the (supposedly) most democratic country in the world "capable of clearly watching the backs of every citizen". The US government is aware of, manages and controls everything, even those things unknown (but belonging) to every one of its citizens.

In employing its facilities, abundant resources, huge annual budgets, broad and solid networks and bureaucracies, laws and even weapons, the government represses all forms of power – whether political, economic, academic, cultural, religious, traditional or other – that exist among the people; even though whatever the government "owns" actually belongs to the people, the state was bestowed its power from the people to create "prosperity" – in essence, happiness – for the people.

Instead of working to bring happiness to the true sovereign of its power/authority [i.e. the people], the government has been more successful in working towards its own welfare and that of the elite that dominates it. Any private/civic power that is perceived able to compete with, let alone exceed, its performance will be confounded and suppressed using the laws it has created, its weapons to forcibly enforce, its bureaucracy to shackle, its spending to persuade and to provoke.

It is no secret how almost all circles have to bargain, even to the point of giving large bribes, to obtain the development funds that seem to be under the ownership of government officials. This psychological condition that smells of feudalism greatly benefits the hierarchical relationship between the government and the people, because the latter is wholly dependent on the former.

This deepening dependence inevitably turns the existing institutions into mere servants of the government, rather than the servants of the people in accordance with their nature and obligations. Whenever problems arise in the lives of the people, the nation and the state, the people always ask: "Where is the state (the government)?" If they are dissatisfied, they demand, protest or rally, until they have forgotten that they can solve many of their own problems without government involvement.

The demands that arise from the people's dependent mentality and weaknesses also make the state weak and paralyzed. Academic institutions must continue to be polite and even pay obeisance to the government. Businesses must serve the government so that its laws and bureaucracy do not hinder their work. Artists and cultural workers ask endlessly for more facilities, requesting grants or simply to rent costumes.

In fact, all these community institutions and social associations also have the obligation to manage, build and develop the country towards maturity. The government is only one of the managers of the state, just one of the "legitimate" representatives (of the state); it is not the be-all and end-all.

People as the face of government

Therefore, it is horrifying that an idea has emerged that positions the government as though it were a philanthropist distributing large funds (several trillion, for example), purportedly to aid artistic productions throughout the country. This idea, which in practice is the division of state funds among many small arts organizations, has immediately given birth to quite a many problems, like where the funds are, to whom to disburse them, who is eligible and who has the authority to distribute them.

The horror of this idea is this logic of domination, wherein those in cultural circles become increasingly dependent on the government, insomuch that their artistic works and creative products will inevitable smell, resemble or embody the government's intentions. This could also happen in any area of life that the government dominates: science, religion, law, even the police and the military.

The tragedy of the abovementioned horrific situation is that authentic creativity has vanished, innovative products are not created, imagination is dulled, and initiatives are become scarce, so that the state will become neglected by its sovereign owners, the people! It is because all these are now the possession of (even camouflaged as) the government. It is therefore unsurprising that among all modern civilizations, from the smallest to the largest, the Indonesian nation lags behind in all surveys conducted by credible international institutions.

This is because we have not succeeded in creating original works as our ancestors did and passed down to us. We have simply become peniron (imitators) or tetiron (an imitation), aka followers and even copiers of the innovative work of other nations. In this post-modern era, we have lost the power to create great works that are admired to become pioneers in the world in fields like technology, trade, military and maritime cultures – for example from Borobudur in architecture, to wayang kulit (shadow puppets), the kris, our hundreds, even thousands, of great dances, and to our amazing culinary variation and techniques.

In a way, I can understand that a democratic government may have a good reason or argument to take a dominant position in all public affairs. However, that reason is never an idealistic one and tends to be ideological – which, incidentally, is created solely for the government's status quo. By custom, the government should use the power, facilities and capital it has been bestowed with upon the sincerity of the people as optimally as possible to develop life through the growth of civic creations, expressions and initiatives. It is the people that is at the forefront; they are the face or the frontispiece of this country, not the government.

The verb "to dominate" should be distinct and separate from the government's drive for power. The adjective "dominant" should be the government's major aspiration to become a driver, endorser and facilitator of all the works and efforts of the people. There is no need to make claims that what has been produced is the property or work of the government, but that they belong to the entire nation. In this way can we step forward, look into the eyes of all other nations and stand proudly before them for creating works that have gained global appreciation and influence.

If remain as we are, a dwarf yelling in his little cave, waiting for a beautiful princess to appear and take care of him and make him happy, I believe we will only be running in place until our sweat runs out and we are drained of our life's blood. It may be that we will even retreat in terms of civility and culture,

which is even worse than to be mired in the pathos of reminiscing over the civil and cultural glory we inherited from our ancestors. Pessimistic? Cynical? Hopefully no one will misread this as such.

Radhar Panca Dahana