Unexpectedly, Pennsylvania and Wisconsim as part of states that never elect President candidate from Republic Party ever since 1980 fell into Republic’s embrace in the end of 2016, which showed by their partiality to Donald Trump. What make this phenomenon looks interesting is Trump’s thriump can not be disassociated from churches supports in United States of America. One of them, Rev. Franklin Graham, an evangelical church leader in US, which also the son of a legendary priest, Billy Graham, which said “God has sent Trump to the White House”. He expressed his gratefulness after assuming that God has sent “His president” to rectify United States of America and make some reformations to his country. Church’s voice and some religious leaders in US, which has 68% Christians, obviously become a substansial ammunition for Trump and his Republic Party.
In the reality, another perspective came from The Guardian’s survey. According to some recognitions from Trump’s supporters, their reason to not choose Clinton because they do not want Clinton’s dynasty will be continued, an impression to Trump’s mission to reduce US’ debt, an expectation that Trump is capable and adequate to bring back US’ glory (as stated in his “Make America Great Again” slogan) through Trump’s negotiation ability, and their will to start the enforcement of conservatives law. Okay, if you think US is too far away, let us take a look in a similar phenomenon that happened in 2013 on Phillipines’ election periods. The element of Roman Catholic Church that days explicitedly made a common cause in political supports based on their rejection to artificial contraception in the Philippines law №10354 about Reproductive Health (RH), in the midst of Vatican’s prohibition to take side on election, though this support based on moral reasons. Before this case, in 1986, Catholic Bishop’s Conference of The Philippines (CBCP) council made some protest to Marcos’ thriump after being considered as a “parallel fraud”.
Back again, this partisanship increasingly visibe on February 2013, whenever two sides, “Buhay Team” (Life team) which opposed the RH law, and “Putay Team” (Death team) as the proposition. Both of them released a recommendation names list for senators candidate to Philippines’ people, which one of it was displayed in front of San Sebastian Cathedral, including seven names of the senators that included in “Blacklist” by the local churches and also named as “The Death Team”. Yet, this partisanship could not breal the political journey of those seven candidates, instead they dominated the voice acquisition. We can draw a conclusion, Philippines’ people were not fully affected by “religious choice”, instead they could find their best choice by their conscience. Thus, how about Indonesia? The phenomenon of Jakarta’s election also loaded by some supports from religious leader.
Behind of Anies-Sandi’s winning which identified caused by a massive support of many religious leaders apparently leaving an interest fact. According to Populi Center survey, 51,3% of Jakarta’s people elect Anies-Sandi due to interest in their vision-mission, though 11,8% others see the “religion factor”. It can not be seen that some religious leaders in this country start to thrust a recommendation list which contains names of presidency candidates in 2019 election and several public figures also recommended people to “back on the right way” by supporting their candidates. “Political ways” took part in the whole process while sticking political promises which based on their fundamentalism and interest. Whoever agreed to “taken” the political contract, they will gain support. We all know, Democracy will not run properly if the government curb their people’s right to elect. Based on this context, freedom refers to an individual “autonomous will” as a political subjective participant, which is means as citizen.
If we talk about “elect”, can not be separated from human’s fundamental right as a rational creature (vernünftiges wesen) which have an autonomous will as a freewill subject. Their conscience’s voice will always take place in the realm of human’s autonomus will and can not be touched by external factors.
Now, the question. Is it wrong if any interventions come froum the outside? No. As far as not intervenes and touch an individual’s autonomous will. All the campaigns, is also the cirtizen’s right to be voted. Campaign is the only way to show their appearance to public. It will be a wrong way if they do physical abuse and physicological violence. A latest problem appears, how if several religious leaders and other religious communities take part on campaigns through sermons and other religious activities? Hmm. On one side, by their sense of fullness, men which base and uphold their life through religious values can not be detatched from it. They will always tend to live basicially based on it and avoid any prohibition in the scriptures.
Thus, Is it right that those religious leaders intervene the autonomus will of voters? I do not think so, moreover the separation between religion and country, that proposed by Soepomo and Mohammad Hatta actually aiming to avoid a barbarian control from country over religion (vice versa) and avoid the appearance of “religious-state”, a state that based on some religious or religion values that restrict the religious freedom. All those religious leders actually carrying out their duty to spread their religipus values to the believers. Yet, they look like “take side” in this case? Not a matter, that is also their right, unfortunately, oftenly we see it as a general deportment of a religious community, not a sentence of a subject as an individual.
Those religious leaders precisely do their duty to spread their religious values to the people. Nevertheless, they might be looked like have a partisanship with several political coalitions? It is not a matter, that is also their right, unfortunately we see it as a “dictum generalization” of several religious groups, not as a subject. Therefore, voters ought to be gratefull because they get much alternatives option that can be considered under their conscience in line with rationality to ascertain their choice.
In this case, rationality is not jus a common-sense use, yet how those alternative options can be considered objectively, as well as any critics, aspirations, other’s opinions — including religious leaser, but must be ensured to be answered with an objective and rational. This is what actually become the root of problem, objective-rational mindset. Frequently, any statements from religious leaders in a political process addressed as an absolute matter, without giving a sphere for the appearance of objectivit and rational-choice based on conscience.
In defining a choice, voters ought to bravely come out from their convenience inferiority, which mean open up themselves for any perspectives from intersubjectivity outside their espoused values. It is not an easy thing, indeed. Nevertheless, if this kind of thing can be done, it will make a positive impact. Voter will define their best choice, based on conscience as an autonomous subject, which gained from several considerations from espoused values either any values from the outside.
Instead insisting on self-tutelage, voter will open their perspective-sphere wider — to see public interest. They will ensure their choice will provide happiness in society, not just for themselves or their groups. So, must we consider any recommendation from religious leaders? We ough to, but also expand our perspective to alow other perspectives come into out mind and can be considered rationally and objectively according to candidate skilss (meritocracy). Whenever voters can use their voice rationally and objectively, the probability of voice control from “religious choices” will get smaller.
Therefore, looking back to US’ election in 2016, Philippines election in 2013, and Jakarta in 2017, it should be our reflection to mature our democracy. Groups, or religious leaders should also be quite behind and not enter the autonomous will of voters to define their choices. The voters also have to use their rational common-sense and vote their choice by conscience. Once again, the role of these religious leaders are not precisely have a significancy for voters’ choices and ought to create a better democracy practices by good statements alongside with maturity process and choice rationalization in our democracy life. Later on, we should support anyone who win the election. Every policy that proved to deviate from constitution must be critized, but whenever a policy make a positive impact for our life, we should give an appreciation. An appreciation without critic is a naivety, but critic without appreciation is a hypocrisy.