By: Made Prawira )*
Students spearheaded by the Indonesian Student Alliance (AMI) will stage a demonstration demanding the rejection of the extension of the President’s term of office. In fact, President Jokowi has consistently refused to extend his term of office, so the public deserves to question who the student demonstrations are aimed at.
The issue of the position of President for up to 3 terms resurfaced, causing students to leave their college seats to protest. Even though Joko Widodo as President has always rejected proposals for a 3-term position.
Not only Jokowi, the PDI-Perjuangan and the NasDem Party also apparently rejected this proposal on the grounds that they comply with the constitution and do not want to betray reform.
Of course, the students who demonstrated on April 21, 2022 must know that President Jokowi once said that his attitude had not changed, he still rejected the proposal for a 3 term position.
Jokowi has always emphasized that he is not interested in becoming president for three terms, because the constitution mandates two terms. And it must be maintained together. he admitted that he had no intention of becoming president for three terms. Furthermore, Jokowi added that the 1945 Constitution has regulated the president’s term of office for two periods which of course must be obeyed together.
Of course, students must understand that their demonstration is the last resort that can be taken. The demonstration that took place on April 11, 2022, apparently was not a peaceful protest by students, but an action carried out by the Anarko group that caused chaos.
Even though the students have protected their group well, each demonstration that is carried out does not seem to guarantee that the action is free from irresponsible intruders.
Of course, in this sophisticated era, students must be able to use technology as a mouthpiece for the community without the need for action to take to the streets which turns out to cause a lot of harm.
As is known, the demonstration on April 11, 2022 actually caused a lot of losses. One of them was experienced by UI Lecturer Ade Armando who was beaten badly by the masses during the action. Even the commando car ridden by the orators could not dodge the stone throwing. Of course, this action is very unfortunate, the heart intends to convey anxiety, but in fact it causes a lot of losses.
Submission of aspirations should ideally be conveyed by all means, online petitions for example, where this petition allows anyone to sign a statement which can later be addressed to members of the DPR, that the people have aspirations that deserve to be conveyed.
Surprisingly, the demonstration organized by BEM SI was apparently infiltrated by 80 students who wanted to take part in the demonstration, of course this is not justified, because students do not necessarily understand this kind of issue, instead of demonstrating to them, students may come to the place of action. because of the need for content on social media.
Indeed, there is nothing prohibiting demonstrations, but why demand the rejection of the 3-term discourse when President Jokowi’s stance has firmly rejected the 3-term position. Or is it just a mere show of existence?
It’s funny, at this time the demonstration is not only aimed at conveying aspirations, but at the same time finding material for instastory. Anyway, exist first, the matter of conveying aspirations, that’s another thing.
As agents of change, of course, students have a moral responsibility to side with the people. Students with critical thinking and orational skills, of course, must be able to weigh the negative impacts that may occur during and after the action is carried out.
Basically, it will be difficult to coordinate a large action which is said to be a student action but in reality, there are groups of non-students who participate in the action line. As is well known, it is precisely from this group of intruders that potential provocations emerge which lead to acts of vandalism and vigilante action. Therefore, if you think about it logically, why should the 3 period discourse actions be accompanied by immoral actions?
If the impact of the demonstration is vandalism and vigilante action, of course students need to use their minds, is there any science in college that allows destruction and injury to fellow human beings?
Because fighting thoughts must be fought with thoughts as well, not with fights that actually make the image of democracy worse.
From here a question mark was formed for the students who held a demonstration, is there no other way to express their aspirations? Or maybe someone backed the students to take to the streets?
)* The author is a contributor to Pertiwi Institute
