This article discloses the mutually effacing nexus between nationalism and citizenship in two years of Covid 19 pandemic in Indonesia. Drawn upon biopolitical approach, our study interrogates the most recent debate on Nusantara Vaccine as critical lens into the question of how pandemic incited nationalism intersects with the question of citizenship. It argues that biological body of the citizen has transformed into central political signifier in two years of health crisis governance as relative replacement of ideological body that has characterised Indonesian citizenship in the last two decades of flagrant political identity. As built upon two terrors of both radical acts and viral infection, presumed permanence of disaster is injected into health policy governance that deepens citizenship deficit within current discourse of national sovereignty under existential threat. This phonemenon turns to be imperative for our critical reappraisal on democracy practice in the country and elsewhere in which different set of question should be raised regarding possible scenarios for active citizenship within biopolitial paradigm of disaster infused nationalism.
Keywords:
Pandemic Covid-19, Indonesia, Biopolitics, Biocracy, Democracy, Citizenship,Nationalism
Introduction
Covid-19 pandemic brings simultaneoulsy nationalism and citizenship back in unprecedented fashion among scholars, policy makers and in public conversation. Viral infection goes beyond health crisis as it captures the question of how citizenship should perform when the pandemic proves to strenghten the nation-state amidst rapid disunity of global powers (Lieven, 2020; Bratersky, 2020). The health crisis then has made critical exposure on policy response with far-reaching consequences on how citizens should apply their right and obligation as well. Some scholars argue that it is the moment for rethinking the role of the state in response to perpetual crisis where high technology might contribute more significantly, while other propose the revival of social solidarity and community-based reliance as our society is now pronounced to live in lasting disaster including ecological crisis and economic dispossesion (Harari, 2021, 2020; Naomi Klein, 2020). In more nuanced sociological lens, current pandemic pushes both state and citizen into new direction of action as ultimate response to transnational risks of globalization (Tooze, 2020; Beck, 1992, 2007).
As the pandemic narrative discloses more space to realign nationalism and citizenship altogether, Indonesia experience offers rather intricate but mutually effacing effect on how national-policy response to the crisis makes governmental rule increasingly paramaount at the expense of deepening the two decade crisis of active citizenship in the country. Democratic forces at home argue that the health crisis strengthens oligarchic power which has for two terms of Jokowi’s presidency been well structured, as evident in number of current policy responses regarding lockdown, virus, vaccine, vaccination and sanctions on ‘dissident’ citizens (Djalong and Hakim, 2021). Komnas HAM, National Commission for Human Rights, for instance, has published state committed violation of citizen’s fundamental rights such as equal access to vaccine and restriction on free speech regarding public narratives of the pandemic (Komnas HAM, Report, 2020- 2021). It is noteworthy that among other related public protest has been the issuance of Presidential Decree 14/ 2021on Vaccine Provision and Vaccination, stating in article 13a/point 4, that constitutional rights of the citizens, regarding access to state’s subsidy called Bantuan Langsung Tunai, deemed non-accessible if citizen does not get vaccinated.
In order to clarify the extent to which governmental power of the state deeply entreches the ways citizens behave in time of pandemic, this article explores debate on Nusantara Vaccine as one of the most crucial issues during two years of pandemic in Indonesia. The debate highlights overwhelming governmental response to the crisis, in the name of national sovereignty, while at the same time transforms political matrix or cognitive content of being national citizen, from twenty years of political identity matrix as response to radicalism and terrorism into two years of biological identity as response to viral infection as existential threat to national sovereignty. It does not border merely on the question of national health such virus and vaccine including vaccination, or limited to the well known dilemma in policy choice between health and economy, but hidden beneath this political process, facilitates the production of new discourse on nationalism and citizenship.
Precisely in this effort, biopolitics, as the most relevant approach to capture democracy under threat, is applicable as critical lens to detecting, tracing and testing how far nationalism that drives policy debate on Nusantara Vaccine affects the shift in political matrix of citizenship. As analytical tools for making more sense of how governmental power defines life and death with certain inevitability of existential threat, biopolitics, directs our attention to rationality, strategy, technics and mechanism of pandemic governmentality as practiced in Indonesian health crisis governance (Foucault, 2003, 2008; See also, Butler, 2013, 2009; Williams, 2002). In doing so, our study moves into delicate, often unthinkable, refabrication of national identity, as it is always in tension, between governmental rule through policy directive and citizen’s daily performance as either individual or collective.
However, our analysis, through this specific study, arrives in rather stark conclusion on Indonesian democracy that pandemic-induced nationalism gives limited space for the question of active citizenhip. Instead of broadening the possible articulations of citizen’s fundamental rights in time of crisis, nationalism that built on two terrors, pandemics and radicalism, has contained citizenhip into the ultimate question of life and death that starts to define citizenship within national supremacy and national threat as well. All this made possible by the fact that during two years of pandemic Covid 19 nationalism and citizenship are bracketed in public policy debate through biopolitical paradigm of health crisis which is taken as permanent, with unpredicatable mutation of virus as evil genius and acceptable failure of vaccination as best recipe. Quickly jumping from ideological to biological terror, Indonesian democracy has lost its qualitative reappraisal of what went wrong with active citizenship in two decades of flagrant political identity, as it welcomes today the practice of disaster responsive governance as possible governmental rule in post pandemic Indonesia.
As elaborated at length in following sections, our approach goes in different direction when undertaking nationalism as biopolitical issue. While not entirely abandoning territorial and historical parameters as employed by conventional study of Indonesian nationalism as modern invention (Anderson, 2006, 1999; Dhakidae, 2014, 2001), our study emphasises on the intricate relation between body and identity as current politics of permanent disaster seeks to reframe the question of active citizenship within the primacy of the nation-state. Global imaginary of the viral infection might serve the hidden interests of transnational powers as evident in the propagated neccesity of foreign vaccine, but, as this study indicates, national response revolves around different issues that serve the interests of the long enthrenched power that takes current health crisis as disguised intrusion into biological body of the citizen and makes the state hostage to virus responsive governance. Precisely when nationalism is injected by the fear of pathogen, outside the realm of the governmental parameters, infectious citizen surfaces as dangerous, hostile to healthy other and corrupting national strength.
First section, Nusantara Vaccine Debate, introduces nation-wide debate which centres on the question to what extent the nation does require its own vaccine. As our paradigmatic case, it discloses two conflicting camps with starkly different notion of virus and vaccine in their respective attempt at projecting national interest, as the debate takes biological body of the citizen as political signifier. Second Section, Virus-Vaccine Embodies Nationalism, offers more nuanced analysis on how virus and vaccine turn out being mechanism through which nationalism as central discourse operates to reimagine national sovereignty whereby virus becomes lethal threat to its existence while Nusantara Vaccine presented as ultimate incarnate of national identity. Third Section, Two Bodies of Indonesian Citizenship, looks closely at how biological body as the most recent political signifier of Indonesian citizenship has taken the symbolic place of ideological body insofar as radicalism and terrorism have characterised in full force practice of Indonesian citizenship in the last two decades of Global War on Terror. While Concluding Remark wraps up main arguments of the article and what is left open as brief recommendation for further study on this topic of nationalism-citizenship nexus.
Nusantara Vaccine Debate: Nationalism Revival
Indonesian response to covid 19 revives old topic of nationalism in rather unprecedented ways. Nationalism question started to emerge with the rapid rise of Ccovid cases published on daily basis by spokeperson of health ministry. Against the backdrop of global panic spreadheaded by big media, Indonesian public becomes more and more haunted by the increasing number of the covid related death and widespread infection. For instance, in early period of pandemic at home it was reported 1.599.763 cases while death relating to the pathogen reached 43.328 patients (Kompas, 17 April 2020). Such increase poses the question of how Indonesia as a nation-state should better cope with the haunting pathogen in the upcoming national health disaster.
Looking more closely, prime trigger in the rise of nationalist sentiment has been the fierce public debate on Nusantara Vaccine. Rapid development of this antiviral medicine initiated by Terawan Putranto, former minister of National Health together with his research medical team from Army Hospital, RSAD Gatot Subroto. As antiviral recipe the vaccine is characterised by the injection of the processed human blood with testing stages slightly quicker than normal production process. For national public, this development comes to be perceived as breakthrough when race in vaccine production was increasingly an international issue.
However, Nusantara Vaccine has attracted wider public attention when BPOM, Oversight Board on Medicine and Foods, led by Penny Lukito, began to question clinical test-procedure of the vaccine particularly on the first testing phase. Though the questioned process was still technical, it exposes curious public to the fierce debate between parties leading to policy debate on public health regulation and the urgency of vaccine availability. As response to the policy debate, President Jokowi took rather balancing stand by his official statement in support of the vaccine development that should be in compliance with scientific procedures (see Jokowi’s statement, Kompas 20 April 2021).
Furthermore, such debate provides more space for political dimension of how technical issue of the vaccine serves to ensure national health policy projection. At the moment the issue went national, more and more parties contributed to the debate ranging from biomedical expert community, Association of Indonesian Physicians (IDI), political party representatives, members of People Representative Board (DPR RI) particularly Commission IX task force on health affairs, to variety of nation-wide social-cultural forums such as Nadhatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah. Involvement of high rank military officials in the debate escalates the debate to include central topics of national interest and national sovereignty.
On military camp, chief of National Armed Forces Hadi Tjahjanto and Chief of National Army Andika Perkasa openly declare their strong support for the development of Nusantara Vaccine. The most notorious is the series of statements made by Gatot Nurmayanto, former chief of armed forces. He formulates more solid and well structured statements that Nusantara Vaccine must be at forefront of national concern. The vaccine perceived as existential demand of Indonesian nation-state, whereby it defends and protects both biological body of the individual citizen and collective body of the nation. Such ideological formulation also complemented by series of statements made by Hendropriyono, former chief of National Intelligence Board.
As case under study, the debate on Nusantara Vaccine contains two central points in the formation of virus-vaccine related nationalist discourse during two years of national health crisis. First, it reiterates in rather starkly fashion how virus and vaccine as integral in global scientific debate with national repercussion in indonesian community of scientists and biomedics as increasingly evident in other parts of the world particularly in Global North. Second, such debate permeates greater room for the inclusion of national sovereignty into centralized governance of health crisis. In the early stage of our inquiry it becomes clear that both scientific aspect and political aspect of the debate shape the future direction of public concerns that has indepth consequence for further analysis of the relation between nationalism and citizenship in Indonesia. The trend in the primacy of national interest has also been the central feature of global phenomenon when viral infection continues to question territorial and political bordering of nation-state and international relation.
Virus-Vaccine as of Power-Knowledge Question
Let us focus first on Nusantara vaccine as problematics of science, particularly among biomedics community as indicated in early phase of global pandemic in March 2020. Virus and vaccine have become two issues in global health governance with which World Health Organization has been under public criticism for its lack of transparance and accountability. Various cases haunt the organization ranging from the miscalculation of pandemic outbreak up to the relatively deficit of transparance in production-distribution of vaccine across the globe (Ferhani and Rushton, 2020; Kamradt-Scott, 2016; Roemer-Mahler, 2016). It is worth noticing, side-effects of vaccination with WHO’s recommendation, either in terms of suddent death or life long injured among the vaccinated, have been global concerns for two decades before Covid-19 outbreak in early 2020. Not to mention large number of networked biomedical experts who have over years questioned the deliberate decision of WHO officials that neglects crucial contribution of virology, immunology, epigenetics and quatum-biology for human health intervention.
In national context before pandemic outbreak, best case to illustrate the problematic of health science and global biopharmacy is the well known dispute between Siti Fadhilah, former health minister and WHO officials, relating to potential Avian Influenza pandemic in 2006. The minister refused to accept pandemic declaration and her official stand then proves correct as such decision prevented possible government policy from spending large amount of public fund for vaccine purchase. Fadhilah’s official attitude toward global monopoly of health decision and medice provision has been similar to the strong stance shown by Ron Paul and Robert Kennedy Jr in United States of America.
Comaprable with her stance, Vandana Shiva, another globally recognized scientist, for instance, advocates public resistance to the biopharma corporations as they have for years undertaking what is called biopiracy (Shiva, 2016, 2005). Not different from Fadhilah’s understanding of biopharma’s global monopoly, Shiva directs global attention to Bill Gates’ networks of research-industrial health complex that has created more risks than benefits for global population and sustainable biodiversity. This is also the case found in many countries like in India, Phillipine and African region, where milions of youth have experienced life long injury relating to vaccination (Global Research Report, 2020, 2021).
In light of Nusantara Vaccine debate, the notion of vaccine nationalism, however ambigious the meaning of this concept as introduced by Tedros, WHO’s Director, becomes official narrative to demonize vaccine-producing states which stop distributing the medicine to other coutries in need as to prioritize their domestic demand (Tedros, 5/9/ 2020). Supported by Fauci of USA CDC, this narrative is contradictory for the simple fact of their own official statement that coronavirus mutates in quicker and unpredictable fashion. Precisely in this global debate, Siti Fadhilah and Terawan Putranto share similar medical understanding with larger global community of experts and anti-biopharmacy activists. The notion of virus nationalism reveals fundamental contradiction in WHO’s official narrative of vaccine urgency when virus itself has been declared in uninterrupted-uncontrollable mutation across the globe. This contradictory narrative also takes global attention to interrogate more deeply into rationality, strategy and mechanism of WHO led health governance in perpetuating the discourse of our world under perpetual pandemic crisis.
Nationalist Sentiment Filling the Gap
Debate on Nusantara Vaccine, as it gets more public attention, has revealed a nationalized trajectory of the pandemic governance since Jokowi first time declared national emergency response in early 2020. In 2020 alone, policy attention focused on epidemic prevention with lockdown as termed PSBB, Pembatasan Sosial Berskala Besar, andchanging into PPKM, Pemberlakuan Pembatasan Kegiatan Masyarakat, in mid 2021upto present early 2022. This preventive policy, together with enforced practice of social-physical distancing, has brought harsh economic consequence for the working class and national economy at large. Other sectors affected by this policy are inter-local trade, Indonesian global-regional trade, transportation and education practices.
Central message of the policy is to ensure the health protection of individual citizen in indefinite span of time. As regularly stated by Jokowi, national interest, as collective citizenship, must be the greatest concern as to ensure the fate of the nation as territorial and multiculral community. Two years response shows that central government does not take herd immunity as strategic approach but focusing more on lockdown at the expense of national economy and restriction on territorial mobility. Including in this general health policy is the enforced tightening of health protocols in accordance with WHO’s ruling which has proves indeterminate and inconsistent over time.
Since the application for first phase-testing of the potential vaccine in 30 November 2020, there has been two camps of conflicting approaches, on how to assure national interest in pandemic policy governance. These camps represent differing institutional standing and political-economic interests as well. First camp comprises those vaccine researchers-producers from RSAD Gatot Subroto and supporters of Terawan Putranto, together with biomedic experts from two biggest state universities, Airlangga University and Diponegoro University. This camp gains strong support from military officials, leaders of well known communities, including policy related support from Commission IX of National Parliament and Siti Fadhilah together with her nation-wide supporters.
Second camp includes individuals and institutions with strong resistance, either deliberately blocking or questioning, to the vaccine development in the name of scientific ethics and medical testing procedures. Long list of the opposition comprises ministry of health under Budi Gunadi, BPOM, IDI, state-owned Bio Farma togeher with its two braches, Kimia Farma and Indofarma. It should be noted that the two conflicting camps share popular support. The latter has been condtioned by months of production of mass hysteria on endless health disaster and strange acceptance to well crafted narrative of human body without biological defense except by high tech rescue in antiviral medicine and vaccination.
What kept hidden in the debate is the political-economic contest between cartels in current ruling oligarchy. It is big business concerning vaccine and other antiviral medicine such as chlorouine, hydroxyclorouine dan azithromychin. That is precisely one of the root causes behind the deliberate blocking on the urgent development of Nusantara Vaccine, including the quick advancement of Merah-Putih Vaccine. The latter has passed the instructed phases as projected to produce massive volume of vaccine in early 2022 (Penny Lupito’s statement, Kompas TV, 16/4/2021). However, during public debate on the vaccine, health ministry has requested to China’s Sinovac three million doses and further request for 260 million doses till the end of 2021. As mentioned this arrangement would not be possible without the involvment of networked segments of big bussines with deep entrenched connection to the ministry, BPOM and Bio Farma.
Our spesial inquiry into the camp labelled as nationalist has spotted two divergent approaches to policy advocacy of public health. First approach, advocated by Terawan Putranto and Siti Fadhilah, has been more attentive to WHO’s playbook as the organization has long history of being the proxy entity for world-wide big pharma networks. Fully enmeshed in the network and regularly funded by Gates Foundation, this organization justifies exclusive monopoly of vaccine production in Global North at the expense of Global South’s independence. The former minister with anti-neocolonialism stand, once launched a statement which then turning popular catching-phrase, ‘lebih baik jadi harimau sehari daripada jadi kambing seumur hidup’—better to be tiger a day than to be a goat a whole life (Siti Fadhilah in two interviews, 27 May 2020; 18 April 2021).
Second approach from the nationalist camp has been reflected in series of statements made by two prominent generals, Hadi Tjahjanto and Gatot Nurmayanto. This approach focuses on national sovereingty or national strength and in particular national readiness to cope with biological warfare as response to the intricate relation between current coronavirus pandemic and geopolitical contest among superpowers. Nusantara vaccine, as this approach suggests, provides the country with medical technology that will make it increasingly capable of dealing with high tech bioweapon of aggresive ‘Communist’ China. Reviving historical memory of the nation, Communist China perceived as the sustained enemy of Indonesian ‘Pancasila’. As explicitly stated by Gatot, that in order to be healhty and self-reliant, citizens should eat foods and drink waters from homeland—kita makan dan minum dari tanah air sendiri dan karena itu tubuh kita harus mandiri (Gatot Nurmantio, 17/4/2021, Interview, TV One). In this light, Nusantara Vaccine, with stronger nationalized sense of corporeal health and national strength, has been perceived as the most suitable with the blood of the national children as best defense available to wage nation-wide war on natural pathogen or lethal virus as foreign bioweapon
In rather unexpected fashion, debate on Nusantara Vaccine also offers critical reappraisal on the current historical revival of Indonesia nationalism in regard to what sort of citizenship needed and how citizens should perform in time of crisis. It is noteworthy that nationalist dynamics shown by Siti Fadhilah represents in its full force Soekarno nationalism 1951-1965, while Gatot’s nationalist narrative reflects in its cognitive depth Soeharto’s understanding of nationalism as central feature of New Order 1968-1998. Both nationalist leanings project nation-state as paradigmatic lens of citizenship in which the first broadens the role of the state into international spectrum with wide-ranging consequences on the role of citizens while the latter consolidates the state as disciplinary power into the inner-world of its citizenhip.
As illustrative of Soekarno nationalism, narratives constructed by the former health minister incites the rise of active citizenship to actively cope with health crisis as integral to global political-economy, particularly biopharmacy monopoly of narratives on health disaster and medicine. In the debate, she drives public attention to Bill Gates’ capture of WHO and global biomedic networks which produce, control, and regulate behavior of the state and its population. On the other hand, as prime exemplar of New Order nationalism, Gatot seeks to redirect public hysteria into war like cognitive response that the Covid-19 pandemic has been the existential threat to national integrity by attacking and corrupting biological body of the citizens, with his persistent assault on China and it communist ideology as reminder of PKI, Indonesian communist party 1951-1965. In short, the two nationalist leaning, which are mutually negating in historical trajectory of Indonesian nation-state, have made rather strange pact on national sovereingty in their support of Terawan Putranto’s initiative, as evident in the use of ‘nusantara’ as national predicate, as being purely Indonesian medicine or magic bullet.
However, as our indepth analysis will venture in next two sections, debate on Nusantara vaccine has transformed into nation-wide discourse as increasingly articulated in two years of public discussion and policy debate. It opens up pandora box in the contest between two conflicting political-economy force in Indonesia. Both forces are in continued attempt at constructing Indonesian nasionalism in time of Covid-19 pandemics. Borderline in the contest has been clear-cutting, between national force subservient to global dictate of WHO and corporate biomedic networks, as it recognizes ‘scientific credibility’ upon which these global entities rest, and national force which imagines the revival of Indonesian nationalism and its repercussion in citizenship by ways of empowering national innovation and responsibilty as longer term projection to stronger nation and creative citizenship. Precisely in this discourse, biopolitics inquiry is adequately able to interrogate the intricate nexus on how the current revival of pandemic-incited nationalism deepens current deficit of active citizenship as being precipitated in the last two decades.
Virus-Vaccine Embodies Nationalism
Against the backdrop of political-economy contest above, our analysis ventures into the the question how national governance of health crisis, through virus and vaccine treatment, has been able to produce a steadily growing imaginary of national body-politics. This imagined construction, as political project, can only be grasped at the moment biological body of the citizens in national health governance performs central role as being in permanent exposure to virus, its mutation and the neccesity of vaccine and vaccination as well (Kumbamu, 2020; Wahlberg, 2015; Villadsen, 2015). It should be noted that construction of national body-politics is unlikely to take place if biological body of the citizen perceived as having immunity like racial purity or immunity relating to climate and territorial proximity.
As illustrated in the case under study, biological body has been confined into the permanence of vulnerability. With the lens of permanent vulnerability, biological body must be continously inspected and regularly tested in abnormal procedure as normalizing mechanism via three practices of tracing, testing and treating (3T). In national environment of politicised medical treatment, frontier between virus and virus carrier starts to blur and collapse which over time turns into zone of the unidentifiable. Quite similar to hunting tactics, biological body is not only vulnerable to pathogen but also experiences what is called pathogenization in epidemics treatment.
It is worth noticing that at the moment biological body of the citizens is taken as being in the permanence of biological vulnerability, physical resilience can solely be attained by medical intervention for both infectious prevention and immune securitization through vaccination. In this light, biological body within health crisis paramaters, constitutes body of the citizens which is always precarious, completely unable to heal or stripped of natural immunity. While on the other hand, medical treatment through vaccine and vaccination is taken undisputably as the only source of immunity for individual citizens and collective nation as well.
In our indepth analysis, biological body of citizen has currently been consituted and performed while constantly entrapped in-between high speed of virus mutation and increasing pace of vaccine production. This phenomenon can also be captured in recent trend within global narrative of health crisis, that is, unexpected reemergence of virus variants in certain states and regions around the world. Parallel with that trend is the rapid increase in the race of vaccine production and distribution with which narrative it suggests that such trend is the only recipe in global fight against the presumed deadly and lethal viruses (Tedros, 2021; Bill Gates, 2021, in WHO News; WEF Report, 2021).
Our focus on the rise of health crisis-induced nationalism in Indonesia tells much about the symbolic and material effects of ‘scientific’ narrative on the ultimate danger of the virus and neccesity of vaccine and vaccination. As explained in previous section, Indonesian Health Ministry shares similar narrative, if not directly applied as direct consequence of globalized governance, that biological body of the citizens has been in permanent danger and in desperate need of nation-wide vaccination. Embedded in the uncontested policy narrative of health protocol, suggestion and instruction are grounded in published claims of scientific objectifity which however dubious and inconsistent they have been, the claim should be accepted and applied. For instance, virus and its mutation are far more intelligent than medical assessment and detection, and the task of health science and research is solely to prove the lethality and unpredictablity of the pathogen.
That is precisely where health crisis gives greater space for different mode of politics in which health crisis and science dwell in new power-knowledge structuring of pandemic governance. Politics of emergency has made acrobatic move by putting aside scientific failure and starting to recognize the intelligence of virus. In doing so, biological body of the citizens needs to be rescued from exposure to superintelligent pathogen—Covid 19. It then follows that vaccine must continously be available and vaccionation must regularly take place with side-effects, including sudden death inccured by the intervention, made tolerable and out of public inspection.
Central point taken from this analysis is that biological body of the citizens, as son of nation, as labeled in phrase anak bangsa, signifies the political moment of how the body in all its vulnerability and exposure is now longer infected by biological pathogen but being colonised by multiple intrusion of national political forces. In this biopolitics, debate on Nusantara Vaccine has been made possible with the already recognition by all parties on corporeal vulnerability of the citizens. But this fact does not mean that they stem from mutually shared interests, particularly political-economy interests, relating to biological body in national-global pandemic discourse.
It is solely through the recognition of biological vulnerability that politization of such body operates in the name of unconstested claims of medical science leading toward continued production of national discourse on ‘national sovereingty’, ‘national pride’ and ‘national health’. The fate of nation goes together with the fate of citizens where biological body constitutes nodal points as political signifier or rallying-crying point of those national forces as mechanism to be integral part of global pandemic governance. Briefly stated, it draws upon this political paradox that global governance of pandemic Covid 19 and ultimate priority of Indonesian-national sovereingty have unfolded and intermingled in the last two years.
Our analysis highlights how paradoxal constitution of citizen’s biological body, both being in permanent vulnerability and as central political signifier, offers more convincing inquiry into nationalism of biological body as political body. Quite different from racism relating to biological body built in genetics supremacy narrative, nationalism of citizen’s biological body within Indonesian pandemic policies in compliance with global crisis governance has developed from increasingly undisputed recognition and metanarrative of human body’s vulnerability, permanent exposure to infectious virus and its unpredictable mutation. Such vulnerability and exposure are perceived to go beyond sex, age, blood type, social-economic class and political community.
In Indonesian case, Covid 19 has turned into political signifier with which national power elites are made capable of expanding their narratives on climate change, ongoing destruction of natural biodiversity and rampant exploitation of the earth. With this national narratives of both internal and external vulnerability at work, it offers more and more incentives for political forces or vested-interest groups within power structure to be in public constest and rallying nation-wide support . Their objective in the public race is to attain and exercise both symbolic and legal-policy authority as mechanism to get biological body of the citizens and the nation healed and protected. Debate on Nusantara vaccine reveals the persistence of such nation-wide race for power through which vaccine supply and vaccination become twofold agenda that binds all vested interests groups together in the race. As the debate continues and health crisis remains so far unhalted, the president issued Presidential Decree No 14 Tahun 2021 on Vaccine Provision and Vaccination. In effect, all forces has shown full support while neglecting the fact that the regulation, as explicated in article 13a point 4, undermines fundamental rights of the citizens relating to harsh economic sanctions for those who prefer self-choice.
Our indepth analysis also discloses the fact that politicization of vaccine in the debate has been the consequence of taking two strands of pandemic induced nationalism since the crisis broke in early 2020. First strand of nasionalism defined as that of accepting and taking path of global science, or globally upheld biomedics, as explicated in phare ‘mengikuti standar keilmuan’. This strand has been source of strenght and inspiration for Badan POM, IDI and Bio Farma. The spokepersons from these three related offices argue that national response to current Covid crisis is too risky to be disconnected from foreign assistance and partnership. In short, it is not the right moment to put national health at stake when the country is still unable to effectively conduct its own emergency response.
While second strand of nationalism strongly refuses such scientific narrative on the basis of national resistance to global biopharmacy and single medical standarization in biomedical treatment of the citizen’s body. Nusantara Vaccine’s research team and Siti Fadhilah’s camp, as two main forces of the strand, argue that blind dependence on foreign vaccines and medical methods weakens national strategic response in longer term of unpredictable ending of the crisis. Such dependence makes Indonesia more deeply entrenched in institutional disempowerment of health crisis response, as explicated in the phrase we must stand on our own foot—‘berdiri di atas kaki sendiri’.
These two strands of pandemic induced nationalism are two conflicting ways in their shared attempt at transfroming biological body of the citizen into political body of greatest national concern. Drawing upon academic discourses on recent trends in nationalism world-wide such populism and globalism oriented, first strand of Indonesian nationalism has sought to healing and protecting biological body of ‘anak bangsa’ by ways of being fully integrated into global health governance. While second strands of Indonesian nationalism, as entangled in flux between Fadhilah’s critique of global biopharmacy and Gatot’s narrative of biological warfare, focuses in healing and protecting the body with food, drink, and medicine including vaccine made in Indonesia. In short, the first strand belongs to global biocracy while the latter national biocracy, as two differing constructions of pandemic induced nationalism.
In line with indepth analysis above, our study is equally attentive to how virus and virus mutation have been brought into the notion of virus nationalism laden with strong pejorative connotation. If vaccine nationalism refers to health policy of vaccine producing state which ignores plea for supply and assistance from other states and consequently prolongs risks of endless global health crisis, virus nationalism then connotes to the behavior of certain state that resists the rules and directives of global health governance. Meaning the state does not carry out nation-wide vaccination and then virus infection in such state is prone to mutate into more lethal variants.
In practice, this disciplinary discourse, virus nationalism, has dramatic consequence. That is, when virus gets nationalized in pandemic governance, biological body of the citizens becomes more strategic as proxy entity where multiple interests of politial-economic groups at home are in protracted conflict to manage national policy response. Political risks can be paramount such as pandemic related policy becomes less effective while national elites entrapped themselves in political conflict that has nothing to do with popular demands for quick crisis response. Back to biological body of the citizens, it becomes more crucial for the elites, completely subservient to power dictates as to signify the total collapse of active citizenhsip in current biocracy-led nationalism.
Concluding point in this section reiterates one of our main argument that biological body of the citizen constructed as children of nation, occupies paradoxical role in pandemic induced nationalism. On one hand this two-faced nationalism enables the body as central political signifier in national governance of the pandemic while on the other hand, the body is emptied out of the rights as active citizen in surveillance state of permanent health crisis. This radical ambiquity of the citizen’s body has been made possible by new rationality of taking viral infection as inevitable, demise of natural immunity and the neccesity of vaccine and vaccination not as last resort but as the only way-out of endless crisis.
Built in this two year discourse is nationalism of emergency, with ever growing grasp of biopolitical power on the part of the state at the expense of rapid decline in active citizenship. This sort of nationalism goes unchecked in series policies such as presidential decree and ministerial instructions as it looks more and more powerful in front of the popular desperation and at the forefront of our Covid diplomacy abroad as well. The extend to which ambiquity of citizen’s body offers political space for popular protests remains to be seen as it requires multiple factors at work. At present our analysis on the genealogy of pandemic induced nationalism takes us into next level of inquiry on how political transformation of the citizen’s body has both historical and sociological precedence nation-wide in two succesive periods from twenty years of Global War on Terror up to current Global Reset period.
Two Bodies of Indonesian Citizenship
When citizenship is no longer active, and collective demos turning into collection of targetted intervention, question of democracy becomes more shocking not only in terms of demoractic projection but more importantantly on its historical distopia and sociological deficit (Negri, 2004, 2009; Mouffe, 2016). This critical insight applies in this section as our analysis seeks to trace and detect the changing modality of Indonesian citizenship from terrorism-radicalism induced nationalism into pandemic modality of current nationalism. This inquiry starts with the recognition of horror of existential threat as biopolitical construction and collective actions (Butler, 2009, Agamben, 1998). In so doing both terrorisme-radicalism and Covid 19 taken as two central signifiers of Indonesian nationalism and how citizenship should perform in all its multiplicity in the last two decades (2021-2022).
Our analysis strongly argues that both signifiers of existential threats have driven Indonesian nationalism with performative effects on the question of the citizenship and governmental power of the state. It requires quick assessment on formative embodiment of pandemic induced nationalism, that is biological body of the citizen, in its intrique relation with the two decade long crisis of ideological body of national identity. Indonesian nationalism has been enacted by two signifiers of national crisis while simultaneously produced rather unidentifiable pattern of political embodiment on the part of the Indonesian citizenhip. Drawn upon biopolical approach, embodiment of crisis includes rationality, strategy and tactics which are integral in current discourse of biopolitical disaster and modality of nationalism and citizenship (Foucault, 2003, 2008; Said, 2013; Sayyid, 1997).
In the last two years Indonesia has witnessed rapid shift where politicized identity is no longer the ultimate matrix in one hand and the sudden incorporation of politicized body into nationalist discourse on the other hand. Politized body of the citizens takes its turn with global pandemic even though identity discourse is not entirely wiped out from the national spectrum. Both biological body of pandemic discourse and ideological body of terrorism discourse, as political signifiers, indicate the nartion-wide transformation, while at the same time inform the most probable, interchangeable deployment of both signifiers in in post pandemic politics. The overall purpose is to meet national plea for identification of citizens who are simultaneously obedient and impotent, society or community which is tolerant and manageable, and the governmental state that is overwhelming and prone to internal and external threat.
However, ideological body and biological body, emanate in post Cold War discourse on permanent crisis like ecological disaster, nuclear warfare, biological warfare which are all perceived as unpredictable and uncontainable. Global declaration of permanent crisis such as Global War on Terror 2001-2020 and Global War on PathogenMarch 2020-2022, has always been precipitated by explosive narrative of globalized threat with headline stories of causes, actors and impacts. As historical lesson, key players and root causes flourish from ideology, nature and currently human contagious body, with its global scale expansion beyond race, religion, class and territory.
Critical point to make here is that parallel with globalization-internationalization of such threats is nationalization of the threats that then results in specific societal experience and governmental response in individual state or region. Experience of globalized risks then gets nationalized and even localized as has been the central attention of sociologial inquiry on neoliberalism led globalization (Beck,1995; 2007). One of the factors behind the national specificity is that every nation has its own social-economic dynamic and political contest which centered on continued construction of nationalism as nation-wide project. Nation as imagined community will surely cease to exist if its symbolic modality stops working. That is why it prerequsites nodal rallying point with which to define its sustained existence and perennial threats from inside and outside its border, as evidently present in sociological construction of populism (Laclau, 2007; Panizza, 2005). At this critical junture, nationalism becomes symbolic horizon loaded with contested signifiers as the nation seeks to persist nation-wide and expand world-wide.
As our study informs, Indonesia experience with two decades construction of nationalism discloses how post New Order’s nationalist project has been in constant plea for variety of threats exploding from global-international crisis which is beyond its national frontiers and capability. This dependence, if not addictive need, comes not entirely from the failure of its national leadership to formulate common enemy as once effectively cultivated by Sukarno and his founding generation (See, Sukarno, Di Bawah Bendera Revolusi, 2016; Anderson, 1999; Dhakidae, 2001, 2014). But it tells more about Indonesia as a nation being enmeshed in delicate structured obedience within neoliberal ordering of the globe. National sentiments among scholars and policy makers make it more apparent that without this subjugated integration Indonesia will fail to advance its economy and promote its golden ideology of Pancasila (Djalong and Brigg, 2016; Hakim, 2010). Best way to grasp Indonesian dependence on global dictate is by looking closely at national counter-terrorism policy, de-radicalization project and tolerance advocacy in the last two decades.
Ideological Body as Precedent
As explicated within Indonesian discourse of counter-terrorism and de-radicalization, political construction of citizen’s biological body operates through the presence of two interrelated threats. First threat is terrorist as actor or group who spreads terror and second threat is ideology or a set of ideas, particularly religious interpretation of Al-Quran, with which drives and justifies the acts of terror. Counter-terrorism practice over twenty years has sought to trace, detect and monitor terrorist, terrorist organization and variety of networks. All these then perceived as relatively mobile and flexible in choice of terror acts, including the possibility of using bioweapon and other lethal chemicals. One of the most unpredictable and relatively undetectable has been lone wolf terrorist with horrific suicide bombing as to serve the ultimate objective of totally deforming body of the perceived sinful enemy together with their own bodies before entering world of the holy. Not only one body needs to be eliminated but hundreds and thousands in order to terrorize population and make the government unstable.
Counter-terrorism response has assumed that terrorist and acts of terrorism are fully indivisble, they are one entity that should be eliminated simultaneously, without delay, in the places whereever they hide and spotted. This direct act of lethal response has a set of legal rules and moral underpinning, stressing that any delayed response means letting greater horror of terrorist violence to take place any time soon. It presummes that violent ideology and horrofic acts embody into terrorist as human, either individual or group. They should be killed, their bodies must be completely destroyed as ultimate assurance that terrorist acts are no longer evident and their radical ideology stops spreading and infecting other’s ways of thinking.
Crucial point here is that in policy practice of Global War on Terror in Indonesia, biological body of the terorist’s citizen, as existential threat to other citizens, turns into existential threat to life and death of the nation. There has been a strongly held mindset among policy makers and general public that Indonesia, as nation, is entirely fixed as historical project, lives in everlasting cultural harmony and socially unbreakable. Presicesly at this symbolic elevation as national threat, terrorism and religious radicalism politically presented as ultimate matrix of national crisis whereby the terrorists and their violent acts signify fundamental crisis of ‘Indonesian citizenship’ and consequently a crisis in ‘Indonesian Community’ (Djalong and Hasibuan, 2017; Djalong, 2010). Indonesia which is tolerant and multicultural perceived as being in danger of changing into total chaos and exclusive nation with majoritarian identity politics rules the country.
Nation-wide agenda to ‘eradicating’ terrorism, as policy related word ‘memberantas’ widely circulating in public discussion, has divided into two mutually enacted approach. First approach is to eradicate terrorism at its roots—memberantas terorisme sampai ke akar-akarnya. While second approach is to prevent the spreading of radical ideology in Sabang to Merauke into mind and heart of the citizens—mencegah penyebaran ideologi radikal ke masyarakat luas. What is worth stressing, the so-called Indonesian nationalism should be guarded and secured with technical skills and special intelligence as part of non-conventional warfare. These eradicative tactics and combative mechanism has been evident since 2003, as has been performed by Densus 88, Anti-Terror Special Detasemen of National Police, following Bali Bombing 1-II. While BNPT, National Board for Handling Terrorism, tasked with the prime objective to prevent the spreading of radical-exclusive ideology by nation-wide promotion, socialization and teaching of Pancasila’s values, nilai-nilai Pancasila, to the youth and wider public. Non-state schools targetted in this promotion policy as widely assumed that Pesantren, Islamic religious school, for instance, has been deeply affected by the radical ideology and the students are in need of de-radicalization programs.
Biological Body of Infectious Citizen
Drawn upon critical inquiry on ideological body of the terrorist-radicalist as precendence, our study emphasises that biopolitics of national health crisis governance operates in rather similar procedures and rationality when dealing with the question of virus-vaccine debate and medical treatment. There has been modified version of tactical approach and policy consideration but overall rationality in the discourse of pandemic Covid 19 as permanent disaster remains unchanged as justification for cancelling democratic debate and banning popular protests. However, as delineated below, biopolitics of Indonesia pandemic governance goes even further to touch directly upon sacred body of the citizen, penetrates into the depth of citizen’s subjectivity and intersubjectivity as to put in place new mode of thinking and behaving in compliance with the grand policy on forced social rules, health protocols and restriction on free speech.
As highlighted in Vaccine Nusantara Debate, virus has been taken for granted, on basis of politized biomedics claims, as deadly, lethal pathogen. Having ignored herd immunity, this pathogen must be unquestionably perceived as the most dangerous, not only for its incurable infection but also most determining its intelligence rapidly develops far beyond human brains in controlling our internally biological response to viral infection. Backed-up with the strange scientification of the virus as incurable by our own biological systems and natural biodiversity ecosystem, Covid 19 turns into existential threat to humanity. The consequence is inevitably clear-cutting that the only problem solving tools and mechanism stem from antiviral medicine and vaccines. In so doing biological body of the citizens become pathogen’s hiding place and viral infectious organ, whereby anti-viral response requires special brilliance, high-tech medical equipments, and health worker must be the first in the top list of pandemic response.
Within this construction of defenseless body of the citizens there has emerged in the process a paradoxal body. On one hand, the body must be rescued with all available means and on the other hand, the same body becomes the pathogen itself with high speed of uncontrollable viral infection. The crucial point is that biological body of the citizen turns to be pathological embodiment, as pathologization develops to the extent that quick treatment to dead body of the citizen must clearly show de-humanization of the body as no longer part of human but that of superhuman pathogen.
In this critical light, tactics and mechanisme of medical response must provide a curative approach of killing the virus as preceded in hard approach of eliminating terorrist in counter-terrorism discourse. Like terrrorists of twenty years combative response, pathogen as infectious human body must be quickly detected, isolated, treated and eliminated when the viral infection poses immense threat to other citizen bodies. With paradoxical body as political matrix of collective safety for exposable citizen and the living nation, cancellment of fundamental ethics and human emphaty can be justified in the name of collective emergency and for the safety of larger community.
Precisely at this point Indonesia citizenship has been emptied out of old collective solidarity and so far infused with different model of humanity, or being human and being with other citizens. In the background of permanent disaster, science and politics have built up a hysteria driven consent on how to treat life and death of both the infectious and exposable citizens. Lurking beneath policy debate on Nusantara Vaccine, crisis based rationality operates to reproduce the primacy of individual sovereingty on the part of healhty citizens and supremacy of national sovereignty on the part of healhty community nation-wide.
Both parties to the vaccine Nusantara debate have come together in mutually shared understanding that beside the lethality of pathogen, vaccine perceived as ultimate neccesity to prevent viral infection among national citizens. Dramatic increase in public hysteria of totally vulnerable body offers far greater room for policy authorization in regulating, controlling and sanctioning citizen’s speech, individual attitude and social bahavior. There has been widely cultivated and spread new sort of nationalism through health protocols, with underpinning sentiments that all citizens should take care of each other, becoming inter-subjective panopticon in everyday affairs. As indicated in morally injected instruction the lasting remainder of the need for social-physical distancing, getting regularly vaccinated, and even wholeheartedly eager to make ultimate sacrifice of not physically in touch with the dead and infectious beloved one.
The disappearance of citizen’s modality to public mourning and collective questioning intimately interweaves with the growing sentiments in centralized health crisis response that vaccine is the only recipe available to confront the unseen enemy. Up to the present response, vaccination has been enforced through variety of public socialization and medical interventions. Good citizen now means obedient to governmental policy prescribtion to be healty citizen under state’s surveillance, while simultaneously the healhty nation persist in time of permanent disaster insofar communities in general accept and implement new abnormal rule of thinking and behaving. As many cases have shown, legitimate questioning the official rule destined to be treated as intolerant and as threatening and dangerous as infectious body of the citizens.
Concluding Remarks
Overall analysis above concludes that in two years of Covid 19 pandemic Indonesian Citizenship has been at stake as crisis-incited nationalism becomes more appealing in policy governance. Reflecting upon Nusantara Debate, the question of active citizenship has been almost entirely absent in the continued policy response to the seemingly never-ending crisis. The debate discloses three layers of how nationalism as political discourse in troubled time has transformed political body of citizenhsip, from ideological to biological, as central nodal point in current reconfiguration of Indonesian democracy. First layer reveals how national elites have benefited from current health crisis governance as indicated in the nationalist leaning toward scientificity and trustful dependence on WHO and the globalized biopharmacy networks. Second layer revolves around the injection of conflicting nationalist sentiments into the debate which has so far been the political driving forces behind current pandemic governance. While third layer is the rapid transformation of citizenship from twenty years of ideological body into biological one as unifying political signifier.
Nusantara Vaccine Debate as our paradigmatic case highlights the nation-wide significance of virus and vaccine as two entities, which are politically activated as mechanism available at present to sustain nationalist discourse with direct consequence on increased deficiency in active citizenship. However, our study does not border on widely held appraisal of democracy deficit with convetional parameters such as equality in access to health service, vaccination or free speech in overwhelmingly controlled information-technology ecosystem. It takes seriously nation-wide debate on virus and vaccine as crucial issues among other health crisis paramaters insofar as life and death have become increasingly central in democracy turning into biocracy of globalized health disaster. Equally instructive is the trend in taking citizenship as hostage for possible scenarios of existential threats to national sovereignty as both ideology body of terrorism and biological body of health crisis have grounded more deeply in current discourse of Indonesian nationalism.
What is then left for citizenship to be more active, critical and constructive in time of politically crafted emergency? This question has an immense call for rethinking how to decouple citizenship question from this sort of nationalism. As evidently obvious at global level, citizenship deficit has become dominant feature in the last two years of Covid 19 pandemic. While Indonesian experience is not entirely unique, it suggests the need for comparative appraisal with variety of experience from other countries either in Global South or Global North. One of the underlying reason for this task is the globalized nature of health crisis within which Global Reset has orchestrated international networks of governing biological body of the world citizens. Indonesia like other countries shares problems and challenges regarding the continued tension between democracy and biocracy from which context nationalism and citizenship are mutually destructive or in reversal moment of being in productive exchange.
Reference
Agamben, Giorgio. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. California: Standford University Press, 1998
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Community. New York: Verso, 2006
Anderson, Benedict. “Indonesian Nationalism Today and in the Future”, in Journal Indonesia, Vol. 67, April 1999, pp 1-11
Aspinall, Edward.“Health Care and Democratization in Indonesia”, in Journal Democratization, Vol. 21, No. 5, 2014, pp 803-823
Beck, Ulrich. World at Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007
Beck, Ulrich. Risk Society: Toward a New Modernity. London: Sage Pub, 1992
Bratersky, Maxim. “International Life after the Pandemic: Economy, Ideology, and Politics”, in Russia in Global Affairs, Vol. 18, No 2, April-June 2020, pp 19-25)
Butler, Judith and Athnena Athanasiou. Dispossession: Performative in the Political. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013
Butler, Judith. Frames of War: When is Life Grievable?. London: Verso, 2009
Chandler, David. “The Coronavirus: Biopolitics and the Rise of Anthropocene Authoritarianism”, in Early Warning, Journal Russia in Global Affairs, Vol. 18, No 2, April-June 2020. Pp 26-32
Djalong, Frans and Morgan Brigg. “Diversity, Democratization and Indonesian Leadership”, in Australian Journal of International Affairs, Special Edition, Vol. 70, No.4, 2016, pp 407-421
Djalong, Frans. “Pluralisme dan Demokrasi: Menuju Politik Kenegaraan”, in Journal Dialog Kebijakan Publik Depkoinfo, Vol. 4, 2010, pp 1-13
Djalong, Frans. “Reorientalising Islam: Terrorism and Discourse on Evil”, ini Journal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, Membedah Radikalisme di Indonesia, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2010, pp 247-273
Djalong, Frans and Hasibuan Dana. “Post-Fundamentalist Islamism and the Politics of Citizenship in Indonesia”, in Eric Hiariej and Kristian Stokke, Politics of Citizenship in Indonesia. Jakarta: Pustaka Obor Indonesia, pp 271-338)
Djalong, Frans and Lukma-nul Hakim. “Global Reset dan Biopolitik Bencana”, in Lukman-Nul Hakim, Frans Djalong dan Mohtar Masoed (eds), Pandemi, Konflik dan Transformasi: Tantangan Perdamaian Berkelanjutan dan Inklusi Sosial. Yogyakarta: Gama Press, 2021
Dhakidae, Daniel. “Membulatkan Lingkaran Kekuasaan: Perjalanan dari Negara Kuat ke Masyarakat Kuat, Godaan dan Konsekuensi Kembali ke Negara Kuat”, Pidato Kebudayaan, Taman Ismail Marzuki, Jakarta, 2014
Dhakidae, Daniel. “Memahami Rasa Kebangsaan dan Menyimak Bangsa sebagai Komunitas-Komunitas Terbayang”, Introduction to Ben Anderson’s translated book, Komunitas-Komunitas Terbayang, 2001
Ferhani, Adam and Simon Rushton,‘The International Health Regulations, COVID-19, and Bordering Practices: Who Gets In, What Gets Out, and Who Gets Rescued?’, in Jurnal Contemporary Security Policy, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1771955
Foucault, Michel. Society Must Be Defended. Lectures at the College de France. New York: Picador, 2003
Foucault, Michel. The Birth of Biopolitics. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008
Gills, Barry and Morgan, Jamie, ‘Global Climate Emergency: after COP24, Climate Science, Urgency, and the Threat to Humanity’, in Journal Globalizations, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1669915
Gore, Radhika and Richard Parker.“Analysing Power and Politics in Health Policies and Systems”, in Journal Global Public Health, Vol. 14, No .4, 2019, pp 481-488
Hakim, Nul Lukman. “Politisasi Islam, Depolitisasi Demokrasi: Islam Politik dan Multikulturalisme Pasca-Orde Baru”, in Journal Prisma, Meredam Ketegangan Agama dan Negara, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2020, pp 3-14
Harari, Yuval Noah, “ Lesson from a Year of Covid”, in Financial Times, 26 Februari 2021
Harari, Yuval Noah, Interview, Deutche Welle, “Yuval Noah Harari on Covid 19: the Biggest Danger is Not the Virus Itself”, https://www.dw.com/en/virus-itself-is-not-the-biggest-danger-says-yuval-noah-harari/a-53195552
Harari, Yuval Noah, “Lesson from a Year of Covid”, in Financial Times, February 26, 2021 https://www.ft.com/content/f1b30f2c-84aa-4595-84f2-7816796d6841
Isin, Engin F and Turner Brian (eds). Handbook of Citizenship Studies.London: Sage Publication, 2002
Kamradt-Scott, Adam, ‘WHO’s to blame? The World Health Organization and the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa’, in Journal Third World Quarterly, 2016, 37:3, pp 401-418
Klein, Naomi, “How Big Tech Plans to profit from the Pandemic”, in The Guardian, May 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/may/13/naomi-klein-how-big-tech-plans-to-profit-from-coronavirus-pandemic
Kitchin, Rob, ‘Civil Liberties orPublic Health, or Civil Liberties and Public Health? Using Surveillance Technologies to Tackle the Spread of COVID-19’, in Journal Space and Polity, 2020
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562576.2020.1770587
Kumbamu, Ashok, ‘The Philanthropic-Corporate-State Complex: Imperial Strategies of Dispossession from the ‘Green Revolution’ to the ‘Gene Revolution’, in Journal Globalizations, 2020
https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1727132
Lieven, Anatol. “The Coronavirus Holds Up a Mirror to Existing Societies: What Will They See?”, in Early Warning, Russia in Global Affairs, Vol. 18, No 2, April-June 2020, pp 15-18
Mouffe, Chantal dan Íñigo Errejó n and . 2016. Podemos: In the Name of the People. London: Lawrence and Wishart Limited
Mouffe, Chantal. On the Political. London: Routledge, 2005
Negri, Antonio dan Michael Hardt. Common Wealth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009
Panizza, Francisco. “Introduction: Populism and Mirror of Democracy”, In F Panizza (ed), Populism and Mirror of Democracy. London: Verso, 2005, pp 1-31
Philpott, Simon. Rethinking Indonesia: Postcolonial Theory, Authoritarianism and Identity. London: Macmillan Press, 2000
Peters, Michael, Stephanie Hollings , Benjamin Green & Moses Oladele Ogunniran. “The WHO, The Global Governance of Health and Pandemic Politics”, in Jurnal Educational Philosophy and Theory, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1806187
Roemer-Mahler, Anne and Elbe, Stefan, ‘The Race for Ebola Drugs: Pharmaceuticals, Security and Global Health Governance’, in Journal Third World Quarterly, 2016, 37:3, pp 487-506
Roberts, David. Global Governance and Biopolitics: Regulating Human Security. London: Zed Books, 2010
Ritu Vij,‘The Global Subject of Precarity’, in Jurnal Globalizations, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1600287
Roberts, David. Global Governance and Biopolitics: Regulating Human Security. London: Zed Books, 2010
Rusthton, Simon and Williams, David, ‘Frames, Paradigms and Power: Global Health Policy-Making under Neoliberalism’, in Journal Global Society, Vol. 26, No. 2, April, 2012
Tooze, Adam. “The Sociologist Who Could Save Us From Coronavirus”, in Foreign Policy, Big Think, Agustus 2020
Williams, Simon J and Bendelow, Gillian. The Lived Body: Sociological Themes, Embodied Issues. London: Routledge, 2002
Wahlberg, Ayo and Nikolas Rose, ‘The Governmentalization of Living: Calculating Global Health’, in Journal Economy and Society, 2015, pp 44:1, 60-90
World Economic Forum. The Global Risks Report 2021. WEF Publication, 2021
Sell, Susan and Williams, Owain, ‘Health under Capitalism: a Global Political Economy of Structural Pathogenesis’, in Review of International Political Economy, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1659842
Shamasunder, Sriram an Holmes, Seth, “COVID-19 Reveals Weak Health Systems by Design: Why We Must Re-Make Global Health in This Historic Moment”, in Journal Global Public Health, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2020.1760915
Sukarno. Di BawahBendera Revolusi. Vol 1. Jakarta: Banana Books, 2016
Sparke, Matthew, ‘Neoliberal Regime Change and the Remaking of Global Health: From Rollback Disinvestment to Rollout Reinvestment and Reterritorialization’, in Journal Review of International Political Economy, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1624382
Sparrow, Robert, Teguh Dartanto and Renate Hartwig, “Indonesia Under the New Normal: Challenges and the Way Ahead”, in Journal Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Vol. 56, No. 3, 2020, pp 269-299
Suryahadi, Asep Ridho Al Izzati and Daniel Suryadarma, “Estimating the Impact of COVID-19 Outbreak on Poverty”, in Journal Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/00074918.2020.1779390
Susan, Olivia, John Gibson and Rusan Nasrudin, “Indonesia in the Time of Covid-19”, in Journal Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2020, pp 143-174
Shiva, Vandana. 2016. Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. North Atlantic Books, 2016
Shiva, Vandana. Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability and Peace. London: Zed Book, 2005
Villadsen, Kaspar and Ayo Wahlberg, ‘the Government of Life: Managing Populations, Health and Scarcity, in Journal Economy and Society, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2014.983831
Sayyid, Bobby. Fundamental Fear: Eurocentrism and the Emergence of Islamism. London: Zed Book, 1997
Kaspar, Villadsen and Ayo Wahlberg, ‘The Government of Life: Managing Populations, Health and Scarcity, in Journal zconomy and Society, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2014.983831
Rebecca J. Hester & Owain David Williams, ‘The Somatic-Security Industrial Complex: Theorizing the Political Economy of Informationalized Biology, dalam Jurnal Review of International Political Economy, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1625801
Ritu Vij,‘The Global Subject of Precarity’, dalam Jurnal Globalizations,2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1600287
Rob Kitchin,‘Civil Liberties orPublic Health, or Civil Liberties and Public Health? Using Surveillance Technologies to Tackle the Spread of COVID-19’, dalam JuarnalSpace and Polity, 2020,https://doi.org/10.1080/13562576.2020.1770587
Simon Rusthton dan David Williams, ‘Frames, Paradigms and Power: Global Health Policy-Making under Neoliberalism’, dalam Jurnal Global Society, Vol. 26, No. 2, April, 2012
Internet Source on Nusantara Vaccine Debate
https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/indonesia-56115147
https://mediaindonesia.com/humaniora/388630/kebijakan-terkait-vaksinasi-covid-19-dinilai-sudah-tepat
https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2021/03/01/08384821/polemik-vaksinasi-gotong-royong?page=all
https://fokus.tempo.co/read/1453893/nasionalisme-kebablasan-vaksin-nusantara-besutan-terawan
https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/indonesia-56061572
https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1422884/ribka-tjiptaning-tolak-vaksin-covid-19-pdip-beri-penjelasan
https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1422884/ribka-tjiptaning-tolak-vaksin-covid-19-pdip-beri-penjelasan