Until now Indonesian politics is still colored by the elderly, in the sense that young people have not been given the opportunity to fully participate in determining future political action. Inviting people to participate in socialization and political education has long been framed as a solution to various community challenges, ranging from environmental problems, distrust of authority, and deteriorating democratic participation. As we know that the backbone of participatory democracy is the slice that is formed from social interaction. Therefore it is very important for us to study how participation is implemented and achieved in the interactions that are created.
Where deontic authority includes recognition of the rights and obligations of individuals to state, propose, and decide how some part of the role of the world should be. As Stevanovic and Svennevig argued that deontic authority is about who has the capacity to determine what is necessary and desirable, what must and what should not be done in the domain of certain actions, and who has the obligation to do what others tell him to done. While acknowledging that these rights can be rooted and influenced by the formal beliefs of the community. The main interest in the field of social deontics is to consider how authority is built and negotiated locally in face-to-face interactions.
Separate, but interrelated with deontics is the domain of knowledge in interaction. Who can decide and propose future actions is closely related to who knows what, who has to know what and who has the right to know what. While deontic authority is about the right to decide how the world should be, epistemic authority concerns the right and responsibility to say how the world is. Epistemic and deontic are socially distributed and morally ordered, in the sense that the community in interaction is responsible for violations and claims that are not appropriate.
Deontic attitude is community authority that is displayed as claimed through speech design, while deontic status is the authority of relatives and community opinion that is more durable. Status is related to what is considered as credentials in the current situation and can be derived from the roles and positions that might exist in the activity being carried out, but are continuously modified in a series of systemic sequential interactions. Every action which then conveys the attitude locally by the individual is related to their assumption status. Appropriate attitudes and status have been shown to be socially preferred for the maintenance of intersubjectivity and progressiveness. This means in practice that if attitudes and status are not appropriate,
One important context in which social deontics becomes relevant is negotiation that says how things should be in the near future or the future, including the future behavior of other communities. Changing the future can be achieved through direction such as advice, information, demands, guidance, criticism, and so on. Through this common direction, politicians encourage voters to take a number of actions. Because directives can carry different deontic forces and temporal ranges, subsequent relevant actions can be carried out close to the first pair of temporarily sometimes more distal parts.
An easy way to make adjustments in the actions of others in the future is to tell someone what to do. In interactions with children, it has been shown that adult societies have full authority over their own children and have the right to direct the future actions of their children without showing any orientation towards possible recipients. This means that parents can design their directives as bold commands.
However, depending on the activity at hand, even with children there seems to be a preference for lowering one’s deontic attitude when displaying the desire or need for future action from others. Referring to the research of Antaki and Kent, they stated that parents whose parental status can only sue, still use strategies such as offering two options to children where one option is less desirable and even a threat. For example, by expressing two choices, namely to finish your dinner or go to your room, it seems that parents show orientation to the child’s freedom of choice.
Likewise in institutional arrangements, there may be egalitarian ideals in a hierarchical structure that must have orientation. For example, in interactions between a professional and a layman, in most interactions there will be epistemic asymmetry in which the professional has expert knowledge in a given field. Conversely, ordinary people have world knowledge about their own lives and experiences associated with it.
However, because the public sector has been bombarded in recent decades with the ideals of participatory governance, there is great interest in negotiating epistemic and deontic authority related to involvement in subordinate decision making by dividing knowledge into expertise and experience. The deontic authority of the subordinate community can be strengthened through the knowledge of their experience. However, they can also abandon perceptions such as deontic authority by pointing to expert knowledge and the role of the professional community. This is how young people are positioned in Indonesian politics to date, so that the only way to improve our political order through the slices of participatory democracy is to create a political deontic authority for young people!
