In the wake of Prabowo’s victory: Rethinking science communication – Academia

[ad_1]

In the murky aftermath of Prabowo Subianto’s victory, the nation has come to grips with the unsettling reality that he came to power following the regime of Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, which became repressive and anti-science in its later years. I had to struggle with it.

For some, the former general’s victory is not easy to understand: Prabowo is tainted by past human rights abuses, close ties to the New Order dictatorship, and the tacit support he received from Jokowi. , Jokowi’s son Jibran Rakabumin Raka is Prabowo’s running mate. And he was appointed on suspicion of violating the 2017 Election Act.

The results of the world’s largest democratic election seem to portend a possible suppression of free speech. In his poignant review, Ian Wilson of Australia’s Murdoch University captured the mood with a somber tone, calling this “the election to end all elections.” Indeed, Prabowo and Gibran’s victories mark a defining moment in Indonesian politics, pointing to a concentration of power in groups that is destroying democracy and scientific thinking.

As science communicators who work closely with the academic community, many of whom reject the idea of Prabowo securing the country’s throne, his conquest in the three-way race shocked us. In fact, he was well aware that Mr. Prabowo was at the forefront of voter research. But many of us were hoping that the second round would happen and things would turn around, but that didn’t happen.

The bitter truth is that we were living in a bubble and overlooked the silent majority. In a country where scientific debate is often confined to ivory towers, neglecting to connect with the grassroots has proven costly. Universities, traditionally seen as bastions of knowledge, often have poor communication efforts, with public relations teams focused primarily on intramural activities and professor promotions.

This situation was further exacerbated by the current state of science communication. The current state of public discourse is constrained by self-censorship as a result of the polarization experienced between 2014 and 2019. Fear of repression and social division (including among our closest inner circles) has suppressed the voices of the public and academics. Limit your influence on public debate.