As much as politics are dark and complex, it is also funny in many ways. It’s common to see candidates misquoting facts and numbers, taking issues out of context, and/or trying to solve issues using scientifically incorrect steps. One that caught my attention recently is the 02 presidential candidate trying to solve the stunting issue by providing elementary school students with free lunch and milk supplies.
I found the free lunch program to be funny in two ways:
- It only takes a simple Google search to learn that solving stunting is not by providing nutrition to school students but to infants at the age of 0–24 months. Children might have already been stunted when they enter school
- The program is boasted as if it can immediately solve every other issue in the country and help drive the country to the (dreamt) golden age in 2045. There’s been no other program being promoted.
It is weird to see this kind of program being promoted for a position as critical as the presidency now that each candidate is backed by panels of experts. But after thinking about it deeper and looking back at my university days, probably we have been used to/trained to be doing non-substantive work from the get-go.
One example that crossed my mind is the National Student Council forum I attended back in 2018. As a member of the external relations of the university’s Student Council at that time, I was sent by the organization with some other members to represent the university. We flew all the way from Malang to Padang just for this forum. Some even flew from Eastern Indonesia. The main agenda of the forum was fairly straightforward; discussing the future programs and procedures plus electing the new chair for the national council. One thing that surprised me, though, was the fact that the forum was planned to be held for an entire week.
I wondered what would have taken so long. Funny enough I got the answer two days in. Apparently, the attendees of the forum contested literally every single detail of the forum. The most appalling was when the forum was discussing the guidelines and procedures of the forum. The guidelines and procedures were already drafted by the organizing committee but need to be agreed upon point-by-point by the attendees. Every single point was then scrutinized to satisfy everyone. I would have tolerated having it discussed for 3 hours but in the end, it took AN ENTIRE DAY to be agreed :)
The next day, the discussion leader needs to be chosen before going into the main agenda. Before choosing the leader, though, the procedure for selection needs to be discussed as well. Again, every single thing was contested, and took nearly 7 hours for the discussion leader to be chosen. That’s already 18+ working hours (if not more) spent just to set the meeting moving. Honestly, what a waste of time.
The forum finally took another 2 days to conclude. The funny thing is that after the forum was finished, there was no follow-up whatsoever from the organization :) There was no significant program being held, no further discussion on national issues, no nothing. All the travel, time spent, and scrutiny for the entire week basically was for nothing. Nothing substantial anyway.
Sure enough, the discussion/scrutiny in the forum trains the attendees to be critical, make their opinions heard, and reach a mutual consensus. Yet, was it really necessary to spend 18+ hours just for procedures alone?
The thing is, this is not the only forum that has this issue. Most of the organizations in universities down to department levels culturally have this kind of meeting that lasts for days for next to nothing. Even the choir I joined in university has this kind of meeting too. It is something that organizations across the country have done for ages and most likely will not stop.
We need to wake up, though.
Focusing too much on non-substantial matters drags us away from the issues that actually matter. The things that need discussing and working on. In the context of the forum I ranted upon above, discussing policy briefs and recommendations for the government, for example, would have been more useful, don’t you think?
As a bunch of people who have the privilege to attend universities, the students have the brain capacity that brings them the responsibility to contribute to the betterment of the public. On the other hand, time-wasting scrutiny and discussion will only fulfill our ego and fulfillment.
If things are not changing, it will be no surprise to see more candidates coming up with programs like the free lunch thing. Perhaps we have been shaping ourselves to act this way from the beginning.
