Arie Putra Total Politik Klarifikasi Dinasti Politik dan Asian Value | Segelas Bersama Pangeran

But it turns out your opinion in that viral video wasn't thorough. I apologize, I apologize. But your opinion was bad back then, right? Well, I indeed you admit that your opinion there was bad, right? Not quite bad yet. But before you wrote about your opinion on Detik, I thought your argument there

was really poor. Right? Right? It wasn't thorough actually. Not thorough. The choice became difficult: am I pro-dynasty or not? For me, it's very difficult. Why? I hang out with many politicians every day and I know the problem isn't there. My criticism of Mr. Jokowi is that Mr. Jokowi is too focused on visible things , infrastructure and such, but very neglectful of invisible things, namely

democracy. Yeah. Now, in this context, I want to say that this political dynasty is a result of our poorly managed democratic climate. But you as an individual, me as an individual, yeah, I'm not 02, am I? Right? Yeah, for me, that's a political choice and that's totally fine, in my opinion, it's fine, look, look, look

politics is a political choice, it shouldn't be debated that. It shouldn't be debated; those are individual choices. Ariputra Total Politik, Asian Values, Total Politik, dynasty. Like Panji said , I've been asking Ari to come here for a long time, two weeks ago. Yeah. Right? I told you I wanted to write first. Yeah. No, you didn't say that to me.

Oh, didn't I? Well, honestly no, the first answer when I invited you through our staff, Elok, you said you were busy right now no? Oh I was going out of town at that time, I already I thought, man, Putra is so arrogant now, his manager, so I just direct messaged him, I said I'm writing first, did I say that to you? Yeah, I think I did. Yeah.

Because I felt that if I didn't write it, it wouldn't feel right because I feel my public speaking skills aren't that good. Come on, you're the number one spin doctor in the republic right now, the one with the YouTube channel, I see it, you're sharp. Yeah, even Commander Pacul now this is sometimes, slander isn't directly proportional to income, you know.

Yeah, I see now that the politicians are all sticking to you, bro. No way, it's the same as you, I've just been following your methods all this time. Why I've never been like that, but I've never had, I've never had a permanent guest. Do you know, if I look at it, Total Politik is it's like reviving Lazarus, people who were politically dead are brought back to life by Total Politik. Zulfan Lindan

, for example, right? Suddenly rises, right? Right? Uh, Opung Panda, this Total Politik is waking everyone up who’s already been hearing about this, right? The thing is , when I started Total Politik, the goal was actually, for me personally, to make a talk show that I would want to watch myself. Meaning, what I wanted to watch were people who, from the start, already understood politics. My initial target,

as Panji said, was to focus on a niche market. So, in the beginning, the goal was indeed to enter that space. Yeah. That’s why the people we invite are those who can tell stories, and whose narratives can be understood by people I call political activists, or those who have already become political activists. Simply put, I’m taking care of people who already know politics. But, there’s always the

question of, what about those who don't know politics, for example, from the start? Well, I assume that if we can entertain those who already know politics and give them what they want, eventually, people who aren't interested yet might get interested too . So, I want to start from a very small market. I’m not a front-stage person, am I? Like you, Panji, back then I was still in college, and you were already hosting everywhere. I remember clearly

that you were the MC at my father-in-law's event with Adri. I just found out that was Adri, I just remembered. That was for Wahib, right? Ahmad Wahib. Discussing Ahmad Wahib's thoughts. Yeah. I was still just someone carrying bags back then. No? You were already a national figure known everywhere, you know. I didn't know who this Ari Putra was

back then, but whenever I saw political figures, Ari was always behind them. I thought you were old, you know. Right? I remember clearly, one day I invited Valdo, back in 2019, I invited Valdo. And. And Rian. Right. After we finished, after the taping, Valdo had already gone home, I think. After Rian had left, he stayed and challenged me to a political debate

about political discourse in front of the coffee. shop. I. I thought, "Wow, which doctoral student is this?" I thought. I didn't really have the need to be in front of the camera back then. So I really do look old. What year are you? 2000. 2008. That is old, actually. It’s not that easy either, actually.

Yeah. Now, you know the reason why I’ve wanted to invite you for a while, but the one concrete reason for having you on is that we want to talk about. Asian Values and political dynasties. But this isn't an interview. I’m not going to ask you questions. I want to pick a fight with you here, actually. As a Ganjar supporter or what? Oh, no. Just as a good citizen, you know. As a good citizen. Here's the

thing, Ria. For me, I don't expect, I mean, I don't forbid people who have platforms from stating their political positions. In fact, I encourage it so things are clear, and there's nothing wrong with that either. That's why you're right, Ng. Yeah. That's why, that's why it's like this. It's like when people were bashing you and Budi the other day, because you clearly defended political dynasties.

Clearly defending political dynasties. Wait a minute. Hold on, hold on. That was the framing, right? Yes, that was the framing. I said, "Oh, that's fine." The fact that Ari's reasoning and opinions were bad—I thought his reasoning was bad. But he has the right to say things like that. I said, he’s free to express his political stance. Just because he has media, has a

channel, has a platform, doesn't mean he can't have an opinion. Like that. Now, it's just, it's just like this, for me, I have never felt that media has to be neutral; I don't believe in that. Uh-huh. Do you believe in "neutral media"? Not really. I don't believe in it. No. Same. Same, same. The only difference is one is visible

and apparent, right? Kind of, kind of, kind of clear. The other might be in the background. But everyone has their interests. If if I want to say it's not neutral, but perhaps proportional. Hm. Now, proportional in the sense that there is always an effort to listen to all, all opinions. Hm. All of them, for example, during the last presidential election, I always

counted, like, how many from 01 this week, how many from 02, how many from 03. There is always that effort, you know. That's with a 1: 5: 1 ratio or something. Uh, not really? At least, you know, Ng, you can't deny the fact that, for example, there are more parties in 02. Yes. Meaning there are also more spokespeople there.

Uh-huh. And if you contact them, their availability is definitely higher there . Hm. Compared to the others. But the effort to make it proportional must be made. To what extent, how perfect, that becomes the problem. The proof is, I keep trying, like the invitation for the "Desak Anies" event, I did it. Mr. Ganjar, that time at the Mamujap

event, I attended it. You were the host at that time, right? I was the host. So even though I mentioned at the time, Yeah. Why was it Budi and Ari? I said. So in my opinion, neutrality, or sorry, proportionality as an effort must be done. Hm, I agree. Yeah. The issue of you having your own values, or like this, I analogize political media to a building manager.

Uh-huh. If I, as the building manager, don't mind if you, as a tenant, want an industrial interior, then go ahead. like Scandinavia, if I read your writing, sure, go ahead, it's up to my preferences. Yeah. What's clear is that I keep striving for proportionality. Yeah. I mean, I'm very aware that, for instance, there was a week where for

four days most of the guests were 02 supporters, for example. Yeah. But that doesn't mean I didn't try to bring in others. Yeah. I tried, but the supply is limited, the number of people who can come is limited. But, now after the election, my question is, what should that effort look like so that proportionality is maintained? So, on one hand, neutrality in the sense that the person hosting a

discussion has values, you can't forbid that. Yeah. Yeah. They have the right to have values and to see issues in a certain way. But proportionality is something you must strive for as much as you can. Whatever it takes. Because, for example , you can hear and think someone's argument is bad only because there's a platform that allows you to hear their argument, right?

Yeah. Now, if your partiality hinders proportionality, that's the critical point, actually. Can a discussion organizer like Panji, or someone like me who has a podcast, manage to maintain the balance between the values you believe in, your personal leanings, and proportionality? So, this is where the real struggle is. For instance, the philosophy of Total Politik for me, from the start, what

made me able to keep going is that everyone who comes there, I consider them my friends. Why does the talk show end up like casual shop talk, sometimes messy, with no one in control—I can't even control Budi, or Budi can't control me sometimes. Yeah, because in our circle, discussions are just like that. So, actually, Total Politik is my attempt to bring my friendly discussions into a podcast, that's what it is.

Now, the question is, how wide is your circle of friends? Yeah. Well, yesterday, the fact was there were many parties in 02. Yeah. And these people were my friends before any presidential election talk, before there were interest blocks. So, in the end, during the election, the people in 02 happened to be more numerous. But it doesn't mean I didn't try; my video with the most views is actually the one

with Anies. Ha, that was because of, you know, a collaboration, it wasn't really your initiative, right? Yes, it was a collaboration. But if I didn't uphold the principle of proportionality, I could have just refused it. Yeah. If I were paid exclusively by 02, let's say, or 03, if I brought someone else in, would you be offended as the one who paid me?

Yeah. But the proof is that I didn't. This effort for proportionality is what truly becomes the principle. Like Panji , for example, whom I mentioned earlier . First, regarding my argument, I truly apologize, but I feel many of my points were not fully conveyed there. That’s why I wrote about it afterward because I felt a sense of panic. Usually, when I'm on stage, Budi is my lucky charm. Yeah.

If it’s a big stage, I get nervous, I look at Budi, and I feel confident again, but yesterday he was nervous too . So, everything in my head just became a mess. Many of my arguments didn't come out right. I sincerely apologize, and I know many people who know me are now doubting my objectivity because of that incident. That fault lies with me. If I— Now, back to the second point, regarding Panji yesterday.

I uploaded the video. Yes. I didn't cut it at all. What does that mean? As a discussion host, I am not against opinions that may differ from my own beliefs. But it wasn’t because you knew it would get a lot of views. No. No. I uploaded it because, first of all, it was actually Panji who asked for

help promoting it on my platform. Yeah. That’s one commitment fulfilled, right? Secondly, it was my attempt to show people that a wide variety of opinions exist on my platform. Uh, what do you call it? The programming is there, an effort to maintain balance. Third, I never feel my opinion is that important. That’s why I just let it go. So I never feel like— But you’re the person who gives

opinions most often, Ri. Everywhere, right? Not just in writing. Where else do I give opinions? We were on the same stage. The stage happened to have me talking too much as well. So, how many panels were on that stage? Only the two of us were talking. Was it there in the end? Uh, which one? IdeaFEST, damn it.

Oh, right. I was invited as a speaker there. Uh, a speaker. Yes. Yesterday, I had to split my role between being the host or a speaker, right? Now, if I am a speaker, I fulfill my duties to the best of my ability. Look, my concern about the video with Panji is different from many people. People are disappointed. Like, "Ari,

Budi is a 02 supporter," for instance, but for me, there's no problem with that, zero issue. But look, look, honestly, I have no problem with that because I feel, again , that people have political positions and it's fine to express them. However, I also have no problem with people supporting 03. It's fine, I'm very open about that, right? Did I ever attack you? No, right? No, right. That’s why what concerns

me isn't about your political position. But before you wrote about your opinion , I thought your argument there was really weak. Yeah. Because it wasn't complete. actually it wasn't complete because what I was thinking about, a lot of it went blank for me. I have to admit that even when you have a certain amount of flight hours in this podcast, you can still get unlucky. In the language of

comedians, like stand-up comics like Panji yeah, even after thousands of hours, you can still bomb. So, I consider that I was indeed, no, no, I just went blank . I admit the fault was mine. Uh, but like this, what I was doing yesterday, basically, I was rejecting my position being cornered actually. Yeah. If I want to explain my argument here,

if I may explain, first Panji said do you agree with the dynasty or not. Now, if you agree, then eventually, based on his show, there's a*mens rea* there, right? If you don't agree, you're part of me. This is the dilemma Panji wanted to point out to me. Now, if you look at my Instagram on May 12th, was it May 12th, right? Try checking the date, in my last video on Instagram, I said there that my criticism of Mr. Jokowi is that

Mr. Jokowi is too focused on visible things, infrastructure, and all that, but very negligent of invisible things, which is democracy. Yeah. Now, in this context, I want to say that this political dynasty is a result of our democratic climate which is not managed well, a democratic climate that lacks fairness. Why did I say that? This is what didn't come out that day. Because the choice becomes difficult. Am I pro-dynasty or not?

For me, that's very difficult. Because why? I hang out with many politicians every day and I know the problem isn't there. Now, that's my first argument. So the second argument is that because I was cornered like that, people eventually thought I was a supporter of 02. Are you not? My context yesterday was trying to be someone who upholds that proportionality.

But you as an individual. Me as an individual, am I 02 or not? Well, for me, that's a political choice and it's totally fine, I think, it's not like this, this, this, this, this. For me, because I manage media with the principle of proportionality earlier, I consider my political choice to be in the private realm. Yeah. If you want to know our political choice, let's talk in a private space

later. But essentially, in the public realm, I have never endorsed, inviting people, because practical politics is inviting people to choose a certain option. Never. Try looking. I shouldn't have ever done that through my social media platforms or anything else. Why should one choose 02 like the Jakarta Post in 2014, for example? Why should one choose Jokowi? I have not done that in my editorial policy and public stance.

All this time. But there is a problem that I underline . Yes. That political dynasties are actually the result of an unfair system . Yeah, I agree with that. So my point is there, that's my position. So what you need to fix is this unfair system. So my problem is this. Fixing the unfair system. Because this is just a consequence. I'll take PDI Perjuangan, the election winner

twice, as an example. Uh yes, right, now they won, uh three times, they won again. Yes, from 2019 to 2024, PDI received about 20 billion per year from the state as party aid. If you multiply that by 5 years, it becomes 100 billion . Let's look at witness funds. The witness fund for one polling station. Let's say, just to be conservative, 1 million per polling station. Hm.

Meaning you need 800 billion for witness funds. There is a gap there. The party gets 100 billion from the state while they have to pay 800 billion for witnesses. There is a 700 billion gap. Where does this money come from? I answer, "The money comes from dynasties, from oligarchs, from everyone unseen on our political stage. " This is what I'm actually criticizing, that the competition has indeed been

unfair from the start regarding political dynasties. That the problem isn't about whether you support dynasties or not. These people who are shouting anti-dynasty all this time, are they fixing this brutal system? Hm. Yesterday, Feri Amsari asked me, "What do you think about the Constitutional Court intervention?" If you think there was intervention, then I can't debate it. You're a legal expert, I said. You

are surely more of an expert than I am. I still believe in expertise, I said. So fine, I'll believe you. There was intervention and it was wrong. But I asked, if intervention was attempted but no political party supported it, would the intervention happen or not? Hm. Yeah, but to condition political parties to support a political agenda isn't hard with all the authority they have, right? Yes, because they are being held

hostage. Yeah. Political parties are being held hostage; where are you going to find this 700 billion? He he. If not by asking for donations, if not by corruption, or whatever, right, like gray-area corruption, for instance. Now, look, R. Yes. So that is the reality of our politics. True. When I read your opinion in Detik

and your explanation just now. Yeah. You're implying that you actually don't agree and you feel that political dynasty is a consequence. Well, from the inequality of the political landscape. But when you are asked whether you support political dynasties or not, you don't say no. No. I said I have no problem with it. I’m not that angry. I’m trying to

accept it, for instance, the Constitutional Court judges back in 2015 who dismissed human rights arguments. At that time, Prof. Saldi Isra was still an expert, saying the rules banning incumbents— upward, sideways, downward—those were , it was really ridiculous. I mean, those rules existed, I even quoted them in my writing. Prof. Saldi Isra said it was

disproportionate, and just recently, Mas Anies Baswedan also said the principle is, the principle is that every citizen has rights and equality, said Mas Anies, Mas Wenda. Everyone eventually says something like that. Yeah. Meaning, it’s not the problem. What I mean is, the problem isn’t there. I also don't feel like that’s the

problem. So I agree that the political aspect is a...a ses... ses...and this...uh... in my opinion, this "ses" has only reached the level of political dynasty. Yeah. But will it stop at political dynasty? I don't think so. Yeah. If you don't fix this competition, yeah. If you don't fix your democratic institutions. After this, we’ll end

up in a civil war. Yeah. I’m convinced that if this isn’t fixed, in less than 50 years, we could have a civil war. Yeah. If there’s a civil war, who are you going to kill first? I have my checklist. Is your name on it ? Well, definitely at the top of the list , because you save the best for last.

Yeah. But since you brought up the Constitutional Court, a few weeks ago, I was chatting and having coffee with someone, a politician, someone our age, from our generation. To me, the political contest is over, you know? Whatever annoyance there was, it's done . But I think that’s just how democracy is. But when we talk, be careful, you’ll get bullied by Mas

Ganjar’s supporters for saying that. Yeah. We were annoyed before. But I think, what are we going to do? Do you think the last election was rigged or not? Or according to the verdict? According to the court ruling, it wasn't. According to the court ruling, it wasn't. Like that. We don't want to mess around with this, right? We don't want to mess around with judicial institutions at any level

once they've made a ruling. Sometimes I think like this too, let's just respect court rulings. People sometimes attack rulings, sometimes use them to legitimize their positions, all sorts of things. Yeah, I think, well, this competition is truly brutal. Yeah. What kind of justice do you expect in this brutal competition? Well,

yeah, that’s actually my critique right there. This is all just a sham. This relates to what you were saying. So when we were chatting, this friend of mine said , "So according to you, Pangeran, was the 2024 election really rigged, or were they just outsmarted?" Right? Just outsmarted. And then if we talk about the Constitutional Court, about placing family members as the

head of the court, and so on. According to this friend, he said, "Well, that just means the winner was smarter than the loser." That's not what he thinks, though. It can be interpreted that way, depending on the perspective from which we view it. From the winner's point of view or the loser's. But what I want to ask you is, is there really no room left for what we call ethics? Does it mean

no, look, it's not our ethics; it’s like I said earlier, when the situation is this brutal, people will do anything , and you can't stop that. That's a fact, right? First, I always say this is about fairness in the competition. Yeah. Now, let's try a thought experiment. If Gibran hadn't run yesterday, Yeah. Do you think the election would have been fair? No money politics, no

intimidation, no no, what do you call it? Yes. In our democracy, which is still growing, those are things often encountered on the ground. Yeah, that's why I think the problem is we don't have the time, we've never invested the time to place ethics and fairness into the competition's framework. For example, I mentioned party funding earlier, try giving

political parties just 1%of the state budget. Yeah. 1%of the state budget, you give that task to the parties. Yeah. To train people, you give it to the parties. If party recruitment isn't right, people entering politics could come from anywhere. If the ones entering are good, that's a blessing, right? If they come from other places, like drug lords and so on, we wouldn't

want that. Yeah. I think this dynasty thing is just one variant of that. Now, sometimes I think like this, if you look at it, if you want to create ethics to prioritize ethics, it's in how you organize the competition from the start. Yeah. Ensuring the competition is fair from the beginning. Now, look, I want to use a medical

analogy. For example, you—I'm not wishing this upon you, but just as an example—you have a stroke. Yeah. If I may take this example, apologies if anyone in the medical field is offended, I'm just illustrating that if you had a stroke, I wouldn't say, " You're terrible, I hate your stroke, man.""I don't want this stroke to be in your body, man." But that's not the problem, right? Yeah.

The problem is, how has Pange been eating lately? What's his diet like? What's his cholesterol level? Is his lifestyle actually healthy? How much alcohol does he consume every day? How much do you drink? Never that much. Never. You drink like Ari Putra, who says he's only doing intermittent fasting for 3 hours. So, how much do you consume things that aren't healthy, resulting in what? Resulting in you

having a stroke. That’s how I see it. It's the same thing with the election competition. If the competition is made fair from the start, for example, to meet that 700 billion margin, you wouldn't have to become a thief. You wouldn't have to become a beggar. You wouldn't have to become a criminal. I think that ethical competition would lead to a fair outcome. Let me give you an example. I want to take Singapore as an example. I

have a Singaporean friend whose last rank was a colonel in the army. He once told me, "Mas Ari, you can accuse my country of being authoritarian, you can accuse us of having a dynasty.""But I believe in the elections in my country. ""They are very prudent and credible."" Why is that, sir?""Well, I’m in the military.""In the last three elections, I voted for the opposition.""After the election, I still got promoted," he said. "Meaning, no one monitors my vote

." Yeah. And the system is prudent, just, and fair. Yeah. But what’s the result? The dominant party stays the same. Yes. Actually, when you are prudent and build fairness by prioritizing ethics in democracy from the start, not at the end, the dominant party remains

dominant anyway. That’s why I criticize those dominant parties. They are afraid of competition. Yes. Just look at PDI, what is their...The gap is 700 billion. Especially for parties like PPP, PAN, or the Democrats in the lower or lower-middle tier. The gap must be even bigger. Earlier at the office, I met the Chairman of PAN Bali. Yeah. Bali isn't a PAN base, is it?

Yeah. Right? We were chatting and talking. Then I asked, "In one regency, how many poll witnesses do you have?" I said yesterday out of 7,500 polling stations . Wait, how many? Not 7,500, let's say 3,000 for one regency. 3,000, 4,000, maybe 1,000 polling stations. How many witnesses does he have? Can you guess in one of the regencies, how many? 30. Yeah.

How can you expect fairness there? Yeah. People aren't even able to manage their own base of votes. Yes. Look, R, we agree that political dynasties and things like that aren't good, right? If we want to say that it's not good, that is the... Consequence. You agree with me, right? Yes, I agree, that's why I'm not debating you on that matter. I'm not debating it. But isn't

it true that... isn't it true that there are people who actually...what do you call it? Who actually contributed to that conclusion ? Instead of trying to eradicate or remove it, they just became complicit. You're actually part of the problem. Do you feel like you're part of the problem? Exactly. Yes. We are sinners. You're lying. You didn't enjoy any of it. I did enjoy it, actually.

Yeah. If people say Jokowi enjoyed it, surely there was some pleasure you felt too. Don't lie about it. I'm trying to remember, what was it? Yeah. Let me just assume that I was the one at fault first. I was wrong. I don't want to assume that just because there's this problem, I feel I'm right; that's the beginning... of the collapse right there. So, let's just assume we are wrong. At

the very least, we never contributed to candidates running for office, for example. Just small things. For instance, Rian Ernest's fundraising —you made fun of it on social media; those who mocked Rian Ernest's fundraising also contributed to this problem. Instead of being indebted to oligarchs, he was indebted to the people. Yeah. Let him work properly; that was wrong,

right? You should have helped Rian Ernest, even though "Golkar-draising" sounds funny. Golkar isn't for fundraising. But my point is, this is all our fault too. Yeah. But I don't want to blame the public either, in the sense that we can't judge people's choices or why they don't fundraise. For example, logically , people put their money in healthy places. Yeah.

They don't want to put money in unhealthy places. So there really is... a problem there, we have to admit that too. That's why reform is important. So, in my opinion, everyone... has contributed to this, and let's sit down together and discuss it all. Yeah. You can, if you think cursing me or cursing political dynasties solves the problem, that's your right, and I can't blame you.

But for me, there is another path I want to take. This is one of them. I am very grateful to Panji. Yeah. I am very grateful for what happened; it reminded me of things I wanted to do but were neglected because of my busyness during the recent election. One of them is that I want to do a judicial review of the Political Party Law. Yeah. So, I have...

personally... with Mbak Titi, I have contacted Mbak Titi. I am going to meet Titi Anggraini from Perludem. Tit There were a few things he said, " Because we've been discussing this for a long time." I just called him earlier this afternoon because I've started appearing on podcasts. So I wanted to talk about this again. "You've been busy for a long time, haven't you?" Yes

, that's true too. I apologized, I said , because of how busy the presidential election was, I couldn't handle it. Now , in this regard, I am grateful to Panji. He reminded me again about what I should have done before. One of them is to file a judicial review of the Political Party Law. A simple example: if you can't improve the situation by giving political parties adequate funding, at least don't destroy their self-respect and prevent them from

carrying out their national and historical duties. At the very least, there are regulations that could be struck down to reduce their costs. One of them in the Political Party Law is that a political party must have a permanent office. Yes. This is my critical point because it's translated in the PKPU that having a permanent office means you must have an office on a main protocol road and

provide proof of a 2-year lease. Uh-huh. I just did some rough calculations. If for 2 years, at 1 year for 50 million, a party office couldn't possibly be less than 50 million, right? Let's just assume the office is very expensive. Your office is more expensive. Your office is more expensive. It definitely is. That’s my reference point. But what I mean is, it can't possibly be under 50 million.

Uh-huh. If it's 2 years, that's 100 million. For one regency or city. Multiply that by 500 regencies/cities across Indonesia. And this is just for the regencies/cities. That's already 100 billion. Yes. Now, the fact is...you can't find anyone in those party offices in the regions. Even the admins sometimes don't show up.

Uh-huh. Who? Let alone the chairs, even the admins are rarely there. You'll probably only find the gardener there. The people who are truly responsible for political education, cadres, and so on, aren't there. It would be better to use these billions for other things. Cadre development, for example. Then finding good leaders, then helping to fund local elections for your idealistic candidates. Now, my question

is, how much will these anecdotal things really affect democratic education? In my opinion, it's like this: because the regulations themselves are often bypassed. We know political parties set up offices in the regions in unlikely places that actually don't comply with the regulations, right? But here's the thing...Coming back to our initial point, Ri. What again, uh...You have a platform, right? You have the

knowledge, you have the network. Many people feel that, what do you call it? Alright, I'm also the type of person who feels you should just be open about your choices. Regardless of if yesterday many people were saying this on Twitter, I said, "Oh, obviously Budi Maari wouldn't dare speak out strongly against the government because if he did, they'd cut off his access." I say it on my Instagram, I do talk about how Jokowi isn't handling

democracy well. On Kemal Palevi's show, I also said that my critique of Jokowi's weak democratic reform is valid. I always say that everywhere. I've never been biased, I'm proportional. So what I mean is, you should always strive to be proportional whoever you're dealing with. Yeah. When you speak the truth, none of them get angry either. Even if you are close

with all these friends. Heh. I feel this is the root of the problem. Let me tell you another story. For example, you might know I once worked with Yoyo Riusu, the former Regent of Batang. Who you say you were still holding the admin access for? I already gave it to someone else. Just before the election yesterday. You told me, "Bro, I'm still holding the account until now."

Before the election yesterday. It was returned. He ran for legislative office yesterday , right? Oh, he ran for office? Yes, joined Nasdem. Nasdem. Central Java 10, oh okay, okay. Yes, the account was still with me until the last election. Yeah. Yeah. I said I couldn't help you anymore

because I have other things to do. That's what I said. "Sir, please go ahead.""Whatever you need, please contact me.""I will help as a friend," that's what I said. But professionally, it's hard for me to manage my time. That Mr. Yoyo was in Batang, you know he's a Bung Hatta Anti-Corruption Award recipient. He was a clean official who created a budget festival. His background story is actually really

interesting. This guy was incredible. But once he got into the system, he lost his way. Hh. You know in Tempo the news came out that the recommendation went to Sandiaga Uno; Yoyo had already left Gerindra and PKS, and Anies wasn't in the picture yet. Anies wasn't there at that time. Yeah, because I remember in the early 2010s, Yoyo was a real rising star.

Yeah, Anies wasn't there yet when the recommendation went to Sandiaga Uno. We can just reveal it now. Yoyo was asked again. "Sir, are you going to run ?""It's already decided, sir.""Our target has been reached." Heh. Because we hoped that you, from Batang, could make it to Jakarta as a good person. My perspective at the time was still about good people. Good people choose good people. Yeah. Good people choose good people.

Just like with Mr. Anies. Then, uh...I asked, "Are you going to run, sir?""I'll ask my mother first." That's what he said. Heh. He asked his mother. You know what his mom said? Yo, you shouldn't run. Why, Mom? I know your mind and soul aren't healthy right now. Mind you, this was against a dynasty; Yoyo had actually defeated the previous regent's wife.

Yeah. That's what she said to him. I mean, how could soldiers from the '94 Military Academy be anything less than capable? Yet, Yoyo’s own mother told him he wasn't healthy. So at that time, there was this thing, what was it called? A psychological stress test. Uh-huh. A hospital set up a command post on the Pantura road. The Batang regent's official residence was on that road.

Right. Back then, the Semarang toll road didn't exist yet. They had a post there. It was for Yoyo’s inauguration. During the test, he held that, what’s it called? He held the stress-measuring device. The result was: stressed. Even though he’d just woken up that morning. Yeah. He was that stressed out. It led me to conclude this: Someone as great, as committed, and as good as Yoyo gets

mentally sick in such a brutal system, man. All his shops and businesses shut down. He had 70 stores at first. Yeah. By the time he finished being regent, he only had eight left; he was wiped out. That’s why his mother didn't approve. That’s one thing. Second, another experience of mine with Valdo Maldini in Bogor, which you mentioned earlier. Yeah.

Valdo’s lung collapsed, like...oh, yeah. Why? During his campaign in Bogor. 2019. Right. He got a respiratory infection. His lung collapsed and he had to take medication for almost two years because of that campaign against a political dynasty in Bogor—you know how Bogor is, and my brother Panji Pragiwaksono, my mentor, also mentioned Bogor.

Yeah. I have experience going in and out of villages with Valdo there, and I know how people play their games and everything. But Yoyo was taken down, he only lasted one term. Yeah. He wanted to go to DKI, but his mother wouldn't allow it. He wanted to continue in Batang, and his mother forbade it even more. I think just being a good person isn't enough. That’s why fair competition

is the most important thing. How do we create a political climate that is good and fair? For example, political education; if parties had the funds to run that, they wouldn't need to go asking around everywhere. The problem is that there’s a huge deficit. This is truly fundamental, in my opinion. So, in your view—okay, since you’ve been talking about how political parties should meet their needs. Yes. Because they’re sick.

Yeah. If I say political parties are unhealthy now—and I’m sure you’d agree—do you think political parties are healthy right now? No, right? Currently, your ballot is what chooses the political parties. You can’t have these sick people deciding how you live , can you? True. So, looking at the big picture of the problem, I see only two solutions. First, political parties should be

accommodated with sufficient funding i or should the entire system be replaced ? No. I prefer the first approach, gradually. The first one I mentioned. But, how? It isn't possible, right? For what? Yes, to make these political parties self-sustaining, they can... I, I am sure they can. I am sure they can. I am absolutely sure political

parties can, and there are many great people out there; once a party is healthy, quality people will join. People from McKinsey or BCG could join a party, you know. Because the climate would finally be healthy. Like that. Now, the problem is that people in the parties, in my opinion, have doubts. First, the doubt is the fear of being bullied. Yes, for example , yesterday Divio told me, my staff said, when PDI received 27 billion in

state funding, people bullied them, even though that's actually too little for political funding. If we follow the KPK and LIPI research, it should be at least 16,000 per vote, but we are only at 1,000 per vote today. So there is still a 15,000 gap, actually. So, first , they are afraid of being bullied because they might not have performed well so far. We also have to admit that our parties aren't performing. People sometimes don't know the reason why

they don't perform. Yeah. Perhaps because the resources don't support them and so on, so they end up underperforming. That's one thing. The second thing, dominant parties don't want any competitors a great challenger. A capable challenger, that is the problem. So there is no capable challenger yet. If you provided this now, there would be a

capable challenger. So I think the difficulty lies within the political parties themselves. In my opinion, those are at least the two things I identified from my discussions with friends, including Daveri. The issues that Daveri experienced when trying to advocate for this. But let me go back to the story about my colonial friend earlier. It turns out that even when challengers and fairness exist, dominant parties remain dominant. The

PAP in Singapore has 30, 40, even 50% —they remain dominant too. In your opinion, which election reform was the healthiest? Healthiest? What are the parameters for that? Well, minimal money politics, parties having independence, and the cadres promoted are indeed those with ideology and well-trained. Right, I could say that if we are talking about cadres, then we are talking more about the legislature.

Yes, the legislature is the source, and our executive options come from there. Yes. Yes. In my opinion, 1999 was the best. 1999, right? 1999. Yes. How much did PDI get back then? I don't know, but they won number one, so... 33%. 3%. Yes. No party since 1999 has surpassed 30%.

Yes. You consider it the healthiest, yet there was a dominant party. Yeah. So these people shouldn't be afraid that their dominance will be replaced. Because when the system is healthy, your trust grows stronger, your legitimacy becomes more solid. So that you might gain such a large vote, right. Now, I wanted to go back to the point you brought up a few times about

Singapore, about the PAP. How a government that seems so iron-fisted, right, so authoritarian. this. This is related to Asian Values, very, very authoritarian. Turns out it could lead to fairness and healthy competition. But, but there are many footnotes actually to how Singapore could establish their political system like it is now. right. We didn't talk about Singapore's history, but I'm sure you already know

what, you know, what Lee Kuan Yew did to the opposition when he was in power early on. Right, right? He wasn't as good to the opposition as he is now, right. True. Now, the next thing is about, okay, if it turns out being, what is it, authoritarian actually results in good things, in fairness. But the temptation is so easy, being authoritarian, absolute power doesn't lead to competitive fairness, and that’s what

people are afraid of now, right. I mean, you don't think it's authoritarian now, right? Is it authoritarian in your opinion? No. But is it fair? No, no. See, right? It’s the same thing, right. My point is, why I used Singapore as an example is we're talking about Asian Values, right. Okay . Yeah. Now, compared to political dynasties,

for me, the most problematic thing is talking about Asian Values. Actually. Asian Values are like this. I do see criticism towards, uh, thoughts about, um, so it's like this, if we look at, uh, Singapore and how they talk about Asian Values, they still use Western methods. Political parties are a new thing for us. Yeah. But there are values, uh, of Asian people, right, that have to engage in a dialogue with, um, with Western methods

that we adopt. Including the nation-state, which is also a new thing for us. We used to be kingdoms before this nation-state. When uh, Bung Karno proclaimed independence, we all committed to becoming a nation-state. This is a new concept that we can accept today, right. That's one context, right. Now, the second thing I want to talk about is the fact that political parties in Indonesia,

right, are an extensification or an extension of personal values. True. So before this country existed, parties already existed. Different from America, right. The country existed first, then they made parties, right. Now, this is also something dilemmatic in our democracy today. So, the Soekarno family was already there before this republic existed to serve the community. The Baswedan family was also already there. They have their own

values. The Baswedan family is educated . Just look at the figure of Anies now. That is a representation of his family, his family's values. So, I want to see that just as Lee Kuan Yew saw society, the smallest unit of a state is the family, not the state which is a personification of the family. No. Yeah. So, the smallest unit is the family. And these families are what then become the producers of the values in our

society, right. Because they were the first to enter politics. Yeah. I have to admit, I don't...my family might be in politics, but we don't have any real influence yet. But the Soekarno family already had Trisakti, for instance, right? Which is why in this case I want to, I want to advocate, I want to be a spokesperson for PDI to talk about party officials, for example. In the sense that, if we say "party official" is negative, well,

maybe it can be. From a negative perspective, well, it's possible, right . And many people think "party official " is a negative term, because this person is controlled by an authority outside themselves to make policies, right. But from another perspective, right, a party official could mean they have to carry out the Soekarno family values during their presidency. Yeah. Right? Because the assumption earlier was that a party is an extension of

individual values. If in family values, individual values, personal values. So the party is a tool for struggle here in Indonesia, that's it. So, they cannot be separated from the values of their family. Because we see the smallest unit as the family. That one individual, the question is, is this individual absolutely free? Yeah, is their independence absolute, or is the individual's independence relative? For me, it's relative. We

have free choice, yes. But on the other hand, we also represent our family's values. Now, this is what I call Asian values in this context, right. So, for example, if someone wants to run as a candidate, no matter what family they come from, they will also be a representation of their family's religious values. For example, like Pange, who has, um, what is it, a commitment to faith in Christianity, for example, those are your family

values. So that appears in the way they manage social life, right. Now, that, that is my point about values. Sorry, let me cut in there. There is indeed an example where I remember clearly we talked about this, and it's rare for me, I rarely am impressed by people my age talking. But I remember well that we talked here and I said that political parties are actually a modern form of warlords. Warlords, yeah

. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. These wartime eras that eventually, in the modern democratic era, turned into political parties. Here, here, there's something I want to explain, this is interesting. If my question is this it stimulates me to explain this, for what do you call it? My question is, in several examples—which aren't many, actually— family, family values that are passed

down and then turned into a collective value. Yeah. That does have an ideological value. Okay. That's passed down, and I think that's what's happening in PDI Perjuangan. Like that. But in many other examples, the family value factor is actually nothing more than an administrative matter in my opinion.

Like that. Because when it's passed down and so on, what are Pak Jokowi's family values in your opinion? Don't know, what do you think? Pragmatic. Yeah. Just as long as the problem is solved. Yeah. You see Gibran has that same way of thinking too. Bobi seems to be like that too, right? So, in your opinion, is that an

ideological value or an administrative value? Uh, yes, ideological is like, how do I put it, because we can't escape our family in seeing reality. Yeah. Yes, your background, if you go to a psychologist, they'll definitely talk about parenting and all that; maybe psychologists know more about it, but that's our perspective in seeing reality. Now, back to what you said about

warlords and all that. Warlord is the term for the democracy model in the Philippines. Yeah. Because they... Yes, very, very... use violence and everything, it's family-based, right? They do democracy by dialoguing with those values. Yes. Yes. The result is the Philippines. Yes. The Philippines is really brutal. Brutal. Really brutal. Really brutal.

Much more brutal than us. Far. Far. Far. Now. Second, for Indonesia, that's why I said earlier we can't just look at one side. Take Singapore, for example, Lee Kuan Yew criticized Western values, the shooting—uh, Western individualism that led to the shooting of drug dealers and all that, which he talked about in his interview with Fareed Zakaria, which I also talked about in my content with Panji. He

criticized it, and if we look at Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew was a child of international turbulence and instability, political instability at the time. So, his approach to leading became like that, just as you said earlier. Yeah. There was brutality towards the opposition and all that. It's good now, right? Right? It's good now because the system works, right? Because fairness was built, he also started to believe

that if I'm not fair, my legacy could be destroyed, for example. Now, that's what I said earlier, why he was brutal, even up to the issue of burning villages and such. Back then there were so many reviews about that issue, right? And now, the photos that appear of him participating in, you know, putting out fires, there are so many of those photos, because the issue was that he was involved there and was harsh towards the opposition. It's true

because the zeitgeist, the spirit of the era at that time, was to rise from ... adversity. Because of rising from international turbulence. They had just left Malaysia , the Federation of Malaysia at the time. And... that left deep sadness, right? That’s what they explain in that Netflix documentary, right? And in the end, it produced a leadership model that had

those authoritarian characteristics. And what’s more, in the context of the Cold War, the Western bloc needed proxies to act as enforcers against communism in Southeast Asia. Which, as we know, back in the 60s, one of the biggest communist parties was in Indonesia and Malaya. Yeah. The Malayan Communist Party. So this is a whole different story, because the context is that these Asian

Values leaders are engaging with the spirit of their times. What I want to say here is when we talk about Asian Values in the context of democracy, the issue becomes different. Uh-huh. Okay. I was talking about the struggle between these houses, as I said. The problem is, can this inter-house struggle run fairly or not? Uh-huh.

Right? When the power Prof. Mahfud said the other day, "These dynasties can't be banned." Right? Exactly. But look, you said earlier about whether it can be fair or not. When the power distribution and power sharing aren't perfectly equal, but are spread out, only then can there be fairness. Yes. That’s why when it's concentrated in just one or

two spots. That’s what we’re criticizing: the system. We shouldn't let it become concentrated. One of them being these houses can engage in politics, right? It's political parties that have the signature. Yeah. They can't function without political parties. At least presidential candidates need parties, even if they could be independent. But the

independent route is rarely taken, is it? But the signature these are sick institutions, not necessarily sick people. Wait, the party people might get angry again. Everyone in this republic is so sensitive right now. This is why this dialogue is the most important thing. You’re talking about this again because you mentioned Singapore. Even Singaporeans, when they talk to us—or

to me, they’d say, "Bro, democracy is overrated," for them. Just look at this "benevolent dictatorship." That's what they say, yeah. Half-jokingly, that it’s okay to be a bit harsh as long as everyone benefits. But to me, that example is too anecdotal. Why? Because in many other places, if you talk about too much power concentrated in one single point, it doesn’t become benevolent; it doesn't benefit anyone.

Agreed, I agree with you. But my point is, I want to talk about dominant parties. Uh-huh. Right? Singapore has a dominant party, doesn't it? There is a dominant party. And based on my friend’s observation, it’s fair, right? Yeah. And look, if the system—going back to what I said—if the competition runs well, Uh-huh.

people won't have doubts about the results. Uh-huh. I mean, the doubt about the results decreases, you know. You don't even need to use those cruel methods anymore . So when a party is dominant and has high trust, it can push any policy without needing any cruelty, right? Now , this is the most important part. Indeed, a critical public is important. A critical citizenry is essential. It's

one of the control mechanisms. But what's also just as important is building healthy competition. I mean, it's like, let's put it simply, you... You. This is a consequence; we agreed earlier that this dynasty is a consequence, right? You keep getting angry at the consequences, but does the problem stop? Yeah. It keeps going. Exactly. People are only angry because

they don't know what else to do, right? That's it. Yeah. Well, my approach is exactly that. I want to go to the Constitutional Court, for example. Yeah. Pushing for the efficiency of political parties. You have representatives in the DPR; you should talk to them. I want to invite them to talk. Yeah. Right? If we eventually have to, what

should I say? I have to say that ultimately, we have to try to enter this space with our own sense of guilt. Yeah. If you go in feeling righteous, you'll never be able to solve this. Yeah. Yeah. You have to realize when talking to the elite and politicians that you are also part of this whole mistake. This is actually really fatal. For example, if you...want to fight Family

A who holds the regent's power and controls the bureaucrats, you can't stop the bureaucrats from supporting them. Yeah. Right? Why? Because you haven't presented the bureaucrats with a promising alternative to oppose them. Exactly. But wouldn't someone eventually say this? "Ari Putra thinks political dynasty is..." There must be consequences.

And you agree. You agree that steps must be taken to change that. I want to look for this support. "But what Ari Putra is doing as a solution is embracing the perpetrators of political dynasties." If there are people ready to move with me to make everything fair, then why not? Yeah. There's that great term, but I won't mention it here; it's anecdotal anyway,

right? But for me, right now, whatever I can do on my own, I'll do it. Yeah. Yeah. Because in my opinion, hating someone today is not the solution. Because going back to what I said earlier, "Yeah." I stop there when talking about good people and bad people. Haha. What I want to discuss is how we can talk to each other to create a good system, a good institution,

an effective institution, that is. So if this political battle runs fairly, it has a good effect, producing great leaders from any background, which is their human right to pursue, as I said yesterday, from any background. Fair, from any background, can run, leadership is effective, yeah. They get re-elected, that’s the consequence, right? Yeah. Now, the most important thing is this, right?

Even if along the way there are attempts to move the goalposts, yeah. That’s what I said earlier, meaning, oh, this is one of the things I wanted to talk about too, good thing you brought up moving the goalposts. Yeah. Like I said, I’m not afraid, I’m not too worried, or how should I put it ? It seems in my reading the future situation might be closer to civil war than authoritarianism. Hm.

Why? Because yesterday the proof was when the three-term issue came up, it didn't pass, did it? Yeah. There were parties that turned out to be able to stand their ground. Mrs. Mega was one of them. That was the only party that stood its ground. Yes, Mrs. Mega, that’s what I mean. Right? I mean the largest party in the DPR

and coincidentally the president was from that party at the time. Yes. And Mrs. Mega’s position was strong back then. Turns out Mrs. Mega wasn’t held hostage, right? She had a strong position. And it turned out there was someone who could block it. So, in this context, I feel like, oh, it seems there was an attempt toward authoritarianism, but it turned out there was Mrs. Mega, one of the very

strong people committed to thwarting it . If authoritarianism, if civil war, I’m still...still not...Still not what? What are the indicators, Ri, that make you think the potential for civil war is high in the future? Because for me, democracy—this is just a philosophy, a simple quote. Democracy is, after all, "from bullet to ballot." Yeah.

Yeah. I when this ballot from bullet to ballot. Yeah. When this ballot is eventually considered ineffective, Yeah. And never provides justice for many people, it will go back to the bullet again. Yeah. That’s just the consequence. And

every civil war in the world has a story like that. Yeah. When this fails, it reverts back. Yeah. This is war in a different sense, you know. I mean, it's not in the sense of Ukraine and Russia, right? I mean, it’s war between political units. If it’s a civil war, it’s brothers killing brothers, sisters killing sisters.

Now, this is the consequence, you see. And if this is never resolved and never handled by the future leadership, I am very afraid that it will happen, because it’s already very visible, it really is. I’m trying to see here that Ari is actually sending codes, he's baiting me to answer, but I don't want to answer. It’s already visible, Ngek. Seriously , Ngek, I...I can't possibly mention it , I mean...

I can't mention the details, but... the movement towards that, I... see the potential for it is very huge ... to happen. So, that's why I want to say that we must restore fairness in the competition. Because if you read a lot of literature on democracy, one of the KPIs in promoting quality democracy is about effective bureaucracy, for example. One of them is also healthy political competition. This is where

the root of the problem lies. And I’m quite happy with our chat today, even though, like I said earlier , I don’t take issue with your political stance. I don’t either. Yeah. Yeah. Because in my opinion, a political stance or choice should not be debated. It shouldn't be debated. It’s everyone's own choice. But it turns out your opinion in that

viral video... wasn't complete. I apologize, I apologize. But your opinion was bad there, right? I...actually I... you admit it was bad, your opinion there, right? It hasn't even reached 'bad' yet, really. You're too optimistic calling it bad; in my opinion, it hasn't even hit 'bad' yet. One thing that makes me quite

happy is...one thing I can draw from today's very long explanation is that ... yeah, the one thing we lack in our political landscape is, as mentioned, fairness, a fair competition. Fairness. Yeah, that's why, you talk about ethics, ethics should be at the start when we set these rules, right? Yeah. How are the ethics here? Is it ethical, in your opinion, for

parties... to be in a deficit like that with this country? Is this country ethical, in your opinion? This country is oppressive, Ngek. Are you told to be a beggar or a thief? Are political parties told to be robbers or beggars? I already defended him earlier, and he turned it around. Wait for this part. Ari defends politicians. Just wait.

Just look at this part... right? This is me... I put you in a respectable place, and you turned it around. Yeah, including El, when you entered politics, I defended El too. My friends who have idealism, you know. We have to place these idealistic people, don't let them—in my religion ... good people... God willing, their paths will be made

easier. Yeah. But in our politics, it’s not like that. People like you should be facilitated, just keep going. Yes. I started wondering if maybe I'm not good enough. Enough, I think that was already really good. Thank you, Re. Pleasure. Pleasure .