Democracy and Power Imbalance in the Perspective Indonesia of John Locke and Thomas Paine
By: H. Sujaya, S.Pd.Gr.
Advisory Board Member, DPP International Journalists Association – ASWIN
On paper, democracy is often praised as the best system of governance. It promises people’s participation, freedom of expression, and social justice. Yet in practice, democracy frequently turns into irony. Leaders who should serve the people instead act as controllers of power and resources, while oligarchs tighten their grip on the state.
Endless corruption scandals, the exploitation of natural resources by corporations, and a tax system that burdens ordinary citizens paint a bleak picture of how democracy can be hijacked by elites. In this context, public criticism of the government is not a sign of hatred, but rather an act of love for the nation.
This perspective is not new. Centuries ago, political philosophers John Locke and Thomas Paine emphasized that sovereignty ultimately belongs to the people, and governments are merely trustees who can be challenged when they deviate from their mandate.
The Imbalance of Democracy
Democracy in Indonesia today faces serious challenges.
First, corruption remains a structural disease. When public office is turned into a tool for personal enrichment, the people’s rights are systematically stolen.
Second, natural resource governance often fails to benefit the majority. Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution clearly mandates that natural wealth must serve the prosperity of the people. In reality, it is frequently controlled by a handful of elites and large corporations, leaving citizens as mere spectators in their own land.
Third, taxation policies are frequently unjust. Ordinary people bear heavy burdens, while the wealthy find ways to avoid their obligations. This structural inequality undermines the very spirit of democracy.
John Locke: Government as a Mandate, Not Absolute Power
John Locke, the English philosopher, argued in his Two Treatises of Government that government is founded on a social contract. Citizens surrender part of their freedom in exchange for protection, justice, and welfare. When the government fails to uphold this mandate, the people have the right to resist.
In the Indonesian context, public criticism of corruption, resource mismanagement, and unfair taxation is not rebellion—it is a legitimate form of social control, essential to preserving governmental legitimacy.
Thomas Paine: Criticism as Patriotism
Thomas Paine, author of the influential pamphlet Common Sense during the American Revolution, made a similar point. Loyalty, he argued, should not be directed toward rulers but toward the principles of justice and liberty.
For Paine, criticizing a negligent or corrupt government is an act of patriotism. To remain silent in the face of injustice is to allow a nation to descend into ruin. Thus, public criticism is a form of care—an effort to keep the nation aligned with democratic ideals.
Criticism as an Expression of Love
From both Locke’s and Paine’s perspectives, criticism is not a threat to the nation. On the contrary, it is an expression of love, a way to ensure that the state does not fall into authoritarianism. Without criticism, rulers risk complacency and tyranny. With criticism, citizens affirm that the nation belongs to all, not to a privileged few.
Conclusion
True democracy can only survive when people are free to speak and correct the course of governance. Criticism is not poison but a vitamin for democracy. It grows out of responsibility and care for the nation’s future.
History shows that reform and progress in Indonesia have always sprung from the people’s voices—those who dared to challenge the status quo. Closing the door to criticism means closing the door to improvement. Conversely, a nation that embraces criticism from its citizens will grow stronger, more dignified, and truly loved.
Indramayu, August 30, 2025
Editor: Abah Roy | Aswinnews.com Editorial Team
