Orwell's 1984 and Indonesia
Orwell's 1984 and Indonesia
The Price of Critique
When Joko Widodo stepped into the
presidency in 2014, it was as a reformer who stood tall in front of a political
giant with ties with the old, authoritarian Indonesia that was marked with oppression
and propaganda, and as a reformer who sought to build Indonesia towards a
progressive future. But six-and-a-quarter year later – amidst reports of a
declining democracy index for Indonesia – when he released a statement asking
for the participation of the Indonesian society to openly criticize public
service when necessary, it was met with scoff, ridicule, jeer, and irony. Such responses
are surprising when we consider the start of his presidency, but these
responses reflected the changes that happened during it; one of them is that
the price that must be paid when criticizing the government has become very
expensive.
The most obvious price to pay is
jail time. Under the heavily-controversial and vague UU ITE Law (Electronic Information
and Transactions Law), many activists and public figures who have raised
legitimate concern and criticism have served jail time for a myriad of reasons,
such as incitement of hatred or causing social unrest. One such example is
Dandhy Tri Laksono – a prominent journalist who was jailed for tweeting in
defense of Papua. Yet there is another, a less obvious price to pay, one that
must be paid by ‘normal citizens’. One that is more ubiquitous and, arguably,
more harmful for the future of democracy in Indonesia.
And that lesser obvious price is
the wrath and attacks of the social media ‘buzzer’.
The signs of their work can be
telling: when a seemingly dishonest, untrue opinion or piece of news regarding
a controversial issue somehow gains traction or virality, or when a certain
public figure gets unthinkable praise or harassment in an instant on social
media, you can almost guarantee the moment you look into the replies or comment
section, you will see tons of seemingly uniform, pre-fabricated responses
pasted robotically on to the thread. You’ll wonder, ‘are these all really
humans?’.
While there may be a grain of
organicity within those responses, most may contain nothing but a bag of
political interests or a greed for money under the shells of their generic
looking username and generic looking profile picture as they try to assume an
illusion of humanity. This is the ‘buzzer’: an army of bogus’, ‘automated’, and
‘anonymous’ social media accounts designed to propagate cherry-picked news and
opinions designed to push a specific agenda, party, or politician online. And
as Indonesian adoption of internet skyrockets, the ‘buzzer’ becomes a crucial
asset for men in higher places fighting for power. This demand has transformed
it into an industry with a prominent role in Indonesian elections since at
least 2012, with a nationwide scale and a fitting structure to support it. With
recruitments patterns and strategies designed to get the ‘best buzz of the
buck’, accompanied with handsome payments compared to other more laborious
work, the ‘buzzer’ is not only an anonymous social media account that spreads
misinformation and provocative opinions on your timeline, but it is an
occupation that forges falsehoods yet spread them as truth. It is an occupation
that tries to monopolize the truth: to promote only one version of ‘truth’, and
disregard/discredit anything else deemed ‘false’. And yet, these buzzers
themselves too admit that they don’t really care whether or not there is truth
in the things that they write or propagate.
And in that limited sense, it is
indeed similar to the work they do in 1984’s Minitrue.
Parallels between 1984 and Indonesia
“Suddenly there sprang into his mind,
ready-made as it were, the image of a certain Comrade Ogilvy, who had recently
died in battle, in heroic circumstances. . . . It was true that there was no
such person as Comrade Ogilvy, but a few lines of print and a couple of faked
photographs would soon bring him into existence.” -1984
When he wrote 1984 in forties,
George Orwell must have known that he was writing a novel that would’ve been
influential in the very near-future – at least for the year of 1984 of reality.
But he mustn’t have had imagined that the book’s stay would extend past beyond
that and into the new millennia, where it is now discussed ad nauseam at
a time where the world seems to be converging into a direction of censorship
and falsehoods online.
But it is also the reason why 1984
shows its age when read today.
1984 is widely referenced for its
portrayal of Oceania, a superstate that is run by an iron-hand,
authoritarian government under the party banner of Ingsoc. It depicts a
government that tries to design every aspect of life of their citizens using
vile methods; from mass surveillances by Thinkpol to detect any hint of
dissidence, the manufacture of a language designed to limit thought,
even to blatant manipulation of falsehoods into truths. The latter is the work
of Minitrue, or in Oldspeak ‘The Ministry of Truth’ – the
workplace of the work’s main character Winston Smith, that which is described
by the excerpt highlighted at the start of this writing.
The excerpt on the top shows one a
clear illustration of his work. In an attempt to cover-up an unperson –
persons that are declared nonexistent for political reasons – on a newspaper
piece, Winston invents a fictious person (‘The Comrade Ogilvy’) in its place
and details a fictious life. At the end of the forgery, Winston submits it and reflects
that, through the massive machinations of the Minitrue and the
government, Ogilvy will be cemented as truth in history, with authenticity and
evidence ‘the same as that of Charlemagne and Julius Caesar’. But this work of
‘forgery’ is just from one type of literature, from one day of work, from one
employee, from one division, from one ministry. As such, when considering the
scale, it is not impossible that this type of forgery to happen in every truth
there is. Winston’s work is only a miniscule part of a humongous system
designed to perpetuate constant falseness under the guise of truth. The
‘perpetuated falseness’ spread through official media can range from slight
numeral adjustments in economic reports, to the blatant lies that seem to show
the opposite of what reality is.
And, in this sense, they can be
compared to the real world, present day buzzers. They design lies and share
them as truth. Their size is also massive and so do their propaganda, which
range from slight re-framings to political attacks built on falsehoods.
But aside from all of that, they
aren’t that much similar. Buzzers are not – formally – part of the government,
nor do they influence published media; instead, they exist almost exclusively
on the online world.
And that’s where 1984’s age
shows. After all, George Orwell must have had the year 1984 in mind, not 2021. After
all, George Orwell mustn’t have had imagined that the democratization due to
technology to reach the unprecedented scale we see such in social media. George
Orwell imagined monolithic, all-encompassing authoritarian governments, and as
such, the ministries and the agents that try to execute the agenda of said
government is centralized and coordinated with a very rigid structure. In sharp
contrast, the buzzers are more akin to roguish, discrete agents that act in
their own personal interests. They exist without a concrete structure, and
their ‘buzzing’ can at times seem both uncoordinated and spontaneous; but their
real power comes not from a single buzz but rather when a collective decides to
buzz in the same direction.
Just like democracy.
As such, these stark
differences arise only because of the stark differences between the systems in
which they exist. When we look deeper – away from the concrete effects and into
the abstract - we will see more similarities. The actions both the buzzer and
the Minitrue bring to society is clear: they present a false view of society,
they use a sort of power to enforce such belief, and they censure those with
rivalling opinions. They spread an element of doubt and uncertainty, using
political buzzwords to obscure meaning and incite emotion, and discredit
‘opponents’ – even going as far as removing them completely from the picture. The
consequences of the Minitrue’s blatant lies are captured perfectly within 1984:
as Winston looks around his people and sees them thin, malnourished, and ugly –
yet the news and media always celebrate preposterous amounts of economic growth
each second possible, he comes to ask: ‘what is truth? Is there ever the
truth?’. This captures the feeling of being stuck among buzzer propaganda; when
one sees a lie that is so undisguised, yet treated and shared like truth, you
will ask yourself whether or not the ‘truth’ is ‘true’. While the systems are
fundamentally different and the eras between now and that of the imagined 1984
has an ever-stretching gap, the essence of Orwell’s story and warnings persist.
This is where 1984’s agelessness prevails.
After all, Orwell’s 1984 was
not a critique of the authoritarian governments. It was an examination of truth
and facts in politics and how they can be manipulated. And when a government –
or broadly, a system – is caught manipulating truth and facts for their own
selfish desires, they cannot escape the predictions nor the warnings of this
legendary science-fiction.
The truth in that statement
can be seen when one sees past the ‘social media buzzer’ and into the wider
hemispheres of Indonesian politics to discover more parallels with the
‘fiction’ of 1984. The ever-presence of Thinkpol (or Thought Police) can be
likened to how buzzers tend to gang up critics and ‘punish them’ – the most
controversial example would be Bintang Emon’s case - or even to the prevalence of actual
intelligence agents posing as a part of society – for example, mie bakso
hawkers on the street. The fear of society to criticize or to question the
government’s decisions are widespread in Indonesia, much like Winston and the
rest of Oceanian society – who guarded himself from showing any displeasure or
doubts from the government, as it would’ve costed death in Oceania. The many
‘rubber laws’ of Indonesia – for example the aforementioned UU ITE – and their often
sparing and selective application of it can be likened to the use of ‘law’ only
as a formality to persecute political prisoners such as Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford
of 1984. And the prevalent use of language and symbols that restricts the use
of the critical mind that is so central to 1984’s analysis of truth and
manipulation, can be visible in the vocabulary and imagery used by politicians,
local leaders, and even buzzers in real life Indonesia. What does the word
‘radical’ pertain? What does the word ‘cebong’ mean? What do you imagine when
you see people with ankle-length pants and goatees? What sort of heinous crimes
have your mind thought of when you see people in red jacket, with the iconic
black bull sign on it?
Learning from Orwell: Avoiding an Orwellian future
"I am a preventor of futures, not a predictor of
them."
- Ray Bradbury, writer of Fahrenheit 451
Initially, this writing intended
to compare ‘buzzers’ with the ‘Minitrue’ to demonstrate their
similarities. But instead, as the scope of the kept expanding, it was soon
clear that the similarities did not stop there, but rather start there.
When all the finer grains of the two are then examined and considered, one can
only wonder how many parallels that can be drawn between the two. But
comparison is not the point of this writing. Rather, this writing intended to
take lessons from George Orwell’s writing.
A key lesson that Orwell wanted us
to learn from 1984 was that of futility.
And perhaps,
this was the most important lesson of it all, as Orwell had dedicated the final
third of book to teach this lesson: that is futile to stop an ‘Orwellian’
government once it has started. The feeling of discontent and a longing for a
better, brighter future of Winston had set the motion of events in 1984, as his
drive guided him to oppose the state in hopes of changing it, to finally set
the truth back to its rightful place: as the only thing that may be regarded as
true. And one can appreciate the weight of this drive, as simply the thought of
‘opposing the government’ was a crime of its own (thoughtcrime) in Oceania
that had the penalty of death. But no matter how much we – as readers of 1984 –
are repeatedly reminded of Winston’s drive, the end of the book sees Oceania’s
government tall, mighty, appreciated by the society as they flaunt and spread
their propaganda; an unmasked lie in clear daylight, while Winston had become battered,
small, irrelevant, and forgotten. Whatever Winston did to change Oceania, Oceania
stayed still and – rather – become stronger. In other words, Oceania – the
prime example of an Orwellian government – was perpetual, forever,
unchanged, and self-preserving. The lesson here is obvious: When politics has completely
killed truth, then truth will forever be lost, and politics will be a game of a
constant cycle of gaining more power and power, without nothing ever capable of
restraining it; not religion, not humanity, not compassion, not anything;
because there is no truth.
Indonesia too
has history with a more conventional ‘Orwellian’ government: the ‘New Order’
that reigned at the same time period as the fictional Ingsoc in ‘1984’, with
its monolithic and centralized government structure that was rife of corruption
and inequalities bore much more similarities than that of the current one. It
also handled truth in a more direct way: the government promoted an official
propaganda and silenced those who disagreed. They kidnapped critics on broad
day light, while holding the press on their throats. Stability and security was
there, sure, but paranoia and fear was commonplace in those era, especially for
the opposition.
However, we’ve
learned that the ‘New Order’ government was dismantled. It was not perpetual –
perhaps absolute perpetuality only existed in the perfect Orwellian government,
in other words fiction – but the effort required to change it was humongous: it
required the momentum of an economic crisis, wide-scale demonstrations
participated by people from all walks of life, social unrest, and civilian
deaths. And even though the ‘New Order’ government had been gone for 21 years
now and counting, the consequences are still there to be seen: corruption and
bureaucratic inefficiency is accepted as fact, economic inequalities are commonplace,
and many of the past crimes the government have not been shed to light or
brought to justice yet. Perhaps this is the perpetuality that Orwell tried to
teach us: that the consequences of a government that plays with and dishonors
truth is forever.
It is only fitting
that the Indonesian government – and citizens too – realize the wealth of the
experience that we have after almost 80 years of independence, and learn from
it. After all, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, so
the saying goes. When people look at the New Order from the lenses of today,
they do see a hopeful era and an end to chaotic times. They do see a time in
which political stability and strong economic development was achieved. But they
also see an authoritarian government that silenced their critics and punished
their opponents. They see a time in which authorities violated human rights
without caution whatsoever. They see a time where corruption and nepotism was
commonplace, accepted, normal while inequalities grew bigger and bigger. Their
legacy is ultimately not that of economic growth or order, but that of
injustice and oppression. And when we see the deliberate twisting of truth in
social media done by the buzzers, the selective persecution of people using a
‘rubber law’, and the rise of fear of criticizing the government in society, then
we should tread carefully and evaluate ourselves. Are we learning from our
mistakes, or are we doomed to repeat the New Order?
The President’s
recent comment on UU ITE – in which he said that if said law does not give
justice, then he requests the legislators to change it – is commendable, but it
does only very little compared to the damages done to the freedom of speech –
of speaking the truth – in Indonesia of recent times. The reality is that, in
the past few years, the activities of buzzers in social media has become more
ubiquitous, the persecutions against critics and activists have increased, and
the grip of the government on the flow of information has gotten stronger. The
future doesn’t look much brighter either: the government plans to implement
massive-scale ‘cyber police’ that patrol the internet to correct
‘misinformation’ and to incriminate those who violate the rubber laws starting
from 2021 – which only adds another parallel to 1984. But the public is
realizing that the government is entering a dark path as it continues its
meddling with truth, evident in the rise of attention of politicians and public
commentators on the issue of buzzers and censorships as symbolized by the jeer
and irony directed towards President Jokowi’s call for critique.
As such, we are
at a sensitive point, and the government must past this test: will we – as both
government and society – embrace an environment of greater free speech, in
which the people can publicly criticize without the fear of multi-interpretable
law or the scrutiny of buzzers, by revising existing law that are problematic
and usually applied unjustly or by restricting the use of buzzers in online
space. Or, will we ignore the numerous lessons of the past and of literature
and go into the darker path; restricting free speech by upholding the laws that
prevent them, by increasing persecution and surveillance of those who
criticize, and by legitimizing the use of buzzers to drown out legitimate
concerns for the government Indonesia. The government must remember that this
test concerns the society of Indonesia and its future, and on a long term
scale: the legacy of reformation.
The writer
certainly hopes that legacy of reformation remains that of a stronger
democracy, greater liberties, and an appreciation for free speech, justice, and
human rights. This test is unarguably a hard one, but the answer is clear and
there is no reason for the government not to do the right decision: to put
truth to its rightful place as the truth.
REFERENCES:
-
CNN Indonesia – Jokowi Minta Dikritik,
Kontras Desak Cabut TR Penghinaan RI-1
https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20210210174730-12-604861/jokowi-minta-dikritik-kontras-desak-cabut-tr-penghinaan-ri-1
Visited on 2021/02/12
-
Kompas - Saat Jokowi Minta Dikritik dan Nasib Aktivis yang Berhadapan
dengan Polisi akibat Mengkritik
https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2021/02/10/14555701/saat-jokowi-minta-dikritik-dan-nasib-aktivis-yang-berhadapan-dengan-polisi?page=all
Visited on 2021/02/12
-
CNN Indonesia – Respons Jokowi Soal Kritik,
YLBHI Beberkan Data Kriminalisasi
https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20210209134904-12-604146/respons-jokowi-soal-kritik-ylbhi-beberkan-data-kriminalisasi
Visited on 2021/02/12
-
The Jakarta Post – 2019 EIU Democracy Index
Shows Indonesia Falling Further Behind Malaysia
https://www.thejakartapost.com/seasia/2020/01/22/2019-eiu-democracy-index-shows-indonesia-falling-further-behind-malaysia.html
Visited on 2021/02/12
-
CNN Indonesia – Asal Usul Kelahiran Buzzer
https://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20181210015736-185-352342/asal-usul-kelahiran-buzzer
Visited on 2021/02/12
-
Kumparan – Apa itu Buzzer? Pengertian, Strategi,
dan Ancamannya Pada Demokrasi
https://kumparan.com/kumparannews/apa-itu-buzzer-pengertian-strategi-dan-ancamannya-pada-demokrasi-1v9cwKL3Vus/full?utm_source=kumApp&utm_campaign=share&shareID=7X2a475kXoVL
Visited on 2021/02/12
-
TribunNews – Kasus Bintang Emon Diserang
Buzzer Viral di Media Sosial, Istana Beri Tanggapan
https://www.tribunnews.com/seleb/2020/06/16/kasus-bintang-emon-diserang-buzzer-viral-di-media-sosial-istana-beri-tanggapan
Visited on 2021/02/12
-
Tirto – Membungkam Pengkritik, Gaya Rezim Orde
Baru Melanggengkan Kekuasaan
https://tirto.id/membungkam-pengkritik-gaya-rezim-orde-baru-melanggengkan-kekuasaan-eL7f
Visited on 2021/02/16
-
Detik – Jokowi: “Kalau UU ITE Tak Bisa Beri
Keadilan Saya Minta DPR Revisi”
https://news.detik.com/berita/d-5375113/jokowi-kalau-uu-ite-tak-bisa-beri-keadilan-saya-minta-dpr-revisi
Visited on 2021/02/16
-
Kompas – Mahfud MD: “Tahun 2021, Polisi Siber
Akan Sungguh-Sungguh Diaktifkan”
https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2020/12/26/10244931/mahfud-md-tahun-2021-polisi-siber-akan-sungguh-sungguh-diaktifkan?page=all
Visited on 2021/02/16
-
Orwell, George. 1984. London: Secker and
Warburg, 1949. Print.
Comments
Post a Comment