Sumber ilustrasi: Pixabay
3 April 2026 17.55 WIB – Umum
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Desanomia [03.04.2026] Fear in the political context is not simply an emotional reaction to a threat, but rather a condition that can be produced, maintained, and disseminated to shape public behaviours. It functions as a subtle yet effective regulatory mechanism because it does not always require formal instruments like laws or institutions to operate. Fear simply exists as a possibility, as a shadow of consequences, which is then internalized by individuals. In this form, fear becomes part of everyday consciousness, embedded in the way people think, speak, and act.
In its meaningful dimension, fear shifts the fundamental orientation of human relations in the political world. If politics fundamentally presupposes the courage to appear in public space, express opinions, and engage in shared processes, fear actually pulls people away from that space. It creates a distance between the individual and public life, making involvement a risk, rather than a normal occurrence. As a result, what remains is no longer an active citizen, but rather a calculating and self-restrained individual.
The first implication of this condition is the narrowing of public reason. When fear is present, reason no longer functions as a tool for seeking truth or considering the common good, but rather as an instrument for avoiding danger. The question that arises no longer about what is right or just, but what is safe to think and speak. In such situations, rationality is distorted: not lost, but rather directed toward survival, not understanding.
A further implication is the formation of silencing mechanisms that are not always visible. Fear does not have to be directly coercive; it simply creates the conditions in which individuals limit themselves. Self-censorship becomes common practice, and public silence is no longer the result of agreement, but rather of collective withdrawal. Power in this situation need not be explicitly present in every space, because control has shifted within the individual.
At the social level, fear is expansive. It transcends the immediate victim and spreads through the collective imagination. A single violent event can serve as a signal read by many as a warning. Thus, fear becomes a medium of political communication: a message unspoken but understood. It shapes a general atmosphere in which unwritten boundaries become more powerful than formal rules.
Within the framework of power, fear often serves as a substitute for legitimacy. When public consent weakens, power can resort to the production of fear to maintain apparent stability. However, this kind of stability is illusory, based not on trust or participation, but on control. It creates order without involvement, while simultaneously eroding the moral and political foundations of communal life.
Furthermore, fear transforms citizens’ positions in politics. From active and autonomous subjects, citizens shift into regulated objects. Their ability to speak, judge, and act is not entirely lost, but is limited by the persistent horizon of fear. In this situation, democracy loses one of its fundamental foundations: the courage of citizens to participate in determining their shared direction.
If that is indeed the condition unfolding, then the question becomes: is such a state the natural form of collective life, or is it otherwise? This question may be addressed to the public and to authority—wherever they may be—as a shared matter for reflection. Is it so? If not, what ought to be done, and how might individuals and institutions begin to move beyond a condition shaped so profoundly by fear?
Compiled from various sources. (njd)
Note: This article was made as part of a dedicated effort to bring knowledge about freedom closer to everyday life and to inspire curiosity in its readers.
