Politics Doesn’t Operate on Moral Principles
The uncomfortable reality
Politics in the state of nature is about resources and human needs.
Look at a common grazing area above. Initially, everyone may be free to use the land as they wish. However, if each person prioritizes their own interests by allowing as many animals as possible to graze for as long as possible, the grass may eventually be depleted.
This illustrates the problem commonly associated with the tragedy of the commons, when individuals pursue their own interests without sufficient coordination, their collective actions can undermine the very resources on which they all depend.
This is where we can begin to understand the fundamental logic of politics. At its most basic level, it concerns how individuals negotiate competing interests, establish common rules, and make collective decisions about the use and distribution of resources. It emerges from the practical necessity of living together, particularly when the number of people is already huge, and civilization becomes more complex.
Yet this process inevitably raises another problem, politics cannot always satisfy everyone’s interests simultaneously. One person may want to bring more livestock to the grazing area because they depend on it for their livelihood, while another may argue that grazing must be restricted to allow the grass to regenerate.
Consequently, political decisions often involve trade-offs. Choosing one course of action over another means prioritizing certain interests while limiting, postponing, or sometimes sacrificing others.
Politics also does not operate solely on moral principles, but involves the strategic use of incentives and disincentives to encourage particular behaviors over others. A government can’t simply tell people not to pollute or ask businesses to prioritize environmental sustainability just because it is morally right.
To address this problem, the government can introduce incentives, such as tax reductions for businesses that adopt cleaner technologies, while imposing disincentives, such as pollution taxes or penalties for violating environmental regulations. Through these mechanisms, environmentally responsible behavior becomes more attractive while making harmful behavior more costly. Law enforcement becomes the determining factor in its success.
Political action, in terms of programs or policies, also requires collaboration. A government may design a policy with a clear objective, but implementing it often depends on the cooperation of multiple actors, including public officials, local governments, businesses, community organizations, and ordinary citizens. This may also require compromises.
On this basis, politics is essentially about strategy: how to advance our interests, or the interests we agree with. Morality comes second, and ideally, the interests we pursue are also morally justified. The strategy involves collaboration and reframing issues so people with different interests can compromise and still cooperate rather than obstruct the process.
Some of these strategies may involve things we are not particularly comfortable with, such as forming broad coalitions across political parties and minimizing opposition, adopting populist policies, and, not infrequently, engaging in negotiations that may result in conflicts of interest.
Get Luthfiyyah Damayani’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
All of this is ultimately aimed at maintaining stability, ensuring the continuity of government programs, and sustaining political power. Without these strategies, political disagreements can escalate into large-scale protests, instability, and, under broader conditions, even political chaos.
With this understanding, people who have a mature grasp of politics do not judge policies solely based on moral principles. They recognize that every policy involves trade-offs. Rather than simply looking for a “good leader” or a “good policy,” they focus on finding leaders who are capable of implementing their programs and policies effectively. After all, putting those ideas into practice and ultimately making them successful is what successful politics is about.
I have been thinking about Indonesia, and I wonder whether this could be one form of the art of politics that President Prabowo understands and is willing to practice: accommodating the private and economic interests of various stakeholders so that a public program can actually work.
Take the free nutritious meal program (MBG), for example. For lower- and middle-income households, this program can provide significant benefits, particularly for families facing limited access to nutritious food. Its broader objectives are also important, from reducing stunting and malnutrition to improving the health and well-being of future generations.
But here is the thing, not everyone whose involvement is necessary to make the program work necessarily cares about these issues. Businesspeople may not be particularly concerned that Indonesia’s stunting rate remains around 20%, or about what that means for the next generation. Political elites may have their own agendas and priorities, too. Relying solely on their moral responsibility or social awareness would probably not be enough to get a program of this scale off the ground.
This is where the government needs to create incentives that give different stakeholders a reason to participate. Instead of framing MBG solely as a program to provide nutritious meals for children, it can also be presented as an economic opportunity for private businesses and other groups involved in its implementation. The government opens up opportunities for businesses to become partners, operators, or central kitchens (SPPG) owners. Their operational costs are funded through the state budget (APBN), and they can also receive operational incentives for running the service.
From a business perspective, this means new revenue streams, projects, and opportunities to expand their economic influence. From a political perspective, bringing in various groups, including party officials, party members, the police, and other political networks, could also help build support and strengthen the government’s political base ahead of future elections.
In other words, the government does not necessarily need everyone to share the same goals. It needs to create a system in which different interests can converge around the same program. Businesses gain economic opportunities, political groups gain a stake in its implementation, and the public gains better access to nutritious food.
Of course, this approach has two sides. On the one hand, this is a form of political pragmatism that may be necessary to implement public programs in a country with so many competing actors and interests. A program cannot succeed simply because its objectives are good. It needs funding, implementers, distribution networks, political support, and people who have tangible reasons to keep it running.
On the other hand, there is a risk that accommodating different interests could turn into political patronage, the distribution of government-funded projects among favored groups, or even state capture. When the interests of those implementing a program take priority — food quality, procurement transparency, budget efficiency, and the welfare of beneficiaries can all be compromised.
That is why political success should be measured by whether those competing interests can ultimately be directed toward delivering public benefits. MBG may still be facing implementation problems, missteps, and plenty of trial and error, but it is politically interesting to see how a social program can simultaneously become an instrument of economic development and political consolidation.
If you want to learn how to do politics, start with one issue. For example, you want to introduce a public transportation system. Doing politics is about figuring out how to make that happen: Which stakeholders should you collaborate with? Where will the funding come from? How should the system be designed and implemented? What compromises will be necessary? Which existing regulations might prevent the program from moving forward? If the necessary regulations are not yet in place, what new policies or institutional arrangements need to be established to ensure that the program can actually be implemented and sustained?
Now, let’s imagine you are the president and want to introduce a nationwide school bus program for all children in Indonesia. The idea is to make it easier for children to get to school, particularly given concerns about road accidents and parents who cannot always accompany their children to school.
You already expect this program to face plenty of criticism. But how would you actually implement it? How would you navigate the politics? Which stakeholders would you bring on board to help you deliver the program? Which groups’ interests would you need to accommodate to secure their support? And don’t forget, you only have five years in office.
That’s what practical politics is really about.
