Besides that, one cannot force one's push for power without giving a damn what other people might think or wish. A reasonable compromise should be taken into account and should be implemented, however stupid and disappointing it may appear.

In other words, determination and militancy have their limits in democracy, whereby one has to respect other people's stances and points of view, though one may hardly believe the other visions and stances can be justified. None less than Socrates in ancient Greece belonged to the first, refusing the implementation of democracy as a political system because it could give an opportunity to the mediocre and the fools to rule over us.

After some centuries experimenting with democracy we now believe it might put the ruled under the power of a stupid ruler, but it also gives a way of replacing a mediocre with a more intelligent, or a malicious with a more balanced ruler. At any rate, people know what best suits their needs and aspirations.

On the other hand, democracy presupposes a certain level of criticism, because the way to political consensus is through a tough contest that needs critical ability to examine, to argue and to judge. Differing opinions and opposing interests are put on the table for public scrutiny. Everybody is entitled and also obliged to look into them to find out which would do justice to most people and could respond best to the requirements of the general interest and public good.

In that sense, determination and militancy stand in direct opposition to criticism and skepticism. Whereas militancy requires attachment, involvement and total commitment, criticism presupposes detachment, distance and deliberation and examination.

A militant person would suspend -- at least for a certain period of time -- their critical attitude because they would tend to give all their energy and attention to an aim they have in mind, while treating this as a focal point of dedication. Reservation and doubt are bad attitudes. One is required to give oneself to what one is striving for with full determination to get to the aim one has envisioned.

By contrast, a critical person will manage to stay aloof. They might be very close to a matter they are observing or examining, and they can also at every moment be in direct interaction with people whose behavior becomes the center of their preoccupation.

However, they have to keep their mind and reasoning independent of what might result from first impressions. Mentally and intellectually, they should remain detached and should refrain from spontaneous engagement. Both quick sympathy and antipathy should be controlled and are put to the test.

Whereas militancy pushes one to quick action and makes one believe one knows what one should do, criticism shakes the feeling of certainty and undermines all sorts of self-righteousness and helps one know what one must not do, or at least can do with precaution and reservation.

Needless to say, both capacities are needed in a sound politics. In the case of the present politics of Indonesia, nonvoting groups, or the so-called Golput, are highly critical of the wrongdoings of political parties to the extent they have decided not to vote for any party.

This is certainly a very critical gesture that expresses deep distrust of the political parties, though philosophically speaking, to choose not to choose is the worst possible choice because it does not change anything and hence, unintentionally, maintains the status quo.

On the other hand, party politicians do their best to appear confident of their visions and goals, without paying much attention to the shortcomings within their parties relating to internal democracy, party ideology, party financing or organizational capacity.

Some even ignore the campaign regulations they have agreed upon. Party posters and billboards of legislative candidates hang or stand near schools, mosques and churches -- something that is not allowed under campaign regulations.

It is very hard indeed to find a good combination of the two capacities in one personality. A militant person tends to gloss over their own mistakes or weaknesses. A critical person often does not have the technical capacity to improve the implementation of what they are criticizing.

However, a good democratic society should be able to combine both capacities by giving them room for their respective roles and by showing appreciation for their contributions, be they constructive, critical or otherwise.