Ida Indawati Khouw , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Sun, 11/16/2008 10:27 AM | People
"Indonesia should ban political parties that are based on primordialism, be they ethnic or religious-based," said Rocky Gerung, philosophy lecturer at the University of Indonesia. He continued: "We should leave behind languages that are no longer compatible (with modern politics)."
Included in the expressions of modern politics are "Do you speak feminism?", "Do you speak environmentalism?", instead of "What's your religion?", "What's your ethnicity?"; the latter two, Rocky said, reflected (political and civilizational) setbacks.
Rocky, 49, was discussing the reinforcement of identity politics, which tend to employ violence and lack ethics. The hard-line Islam Defenders Front's (FPI) violent ambush in June against a pro-pluralism rally and the October enactment of the Pornography Law (UUP), the content of which has been criticized for forcing the majority's morals on the general public, despite strong protests, were some of the examples.
The House lacks a sense of ethics
Rocky considers the House of Representatives political maneuvering behind the UUP an effort to win the majority's votes.
"This is a dangerous game -- they are playing with fundamental issues for pragmatic motives."
Question: (Respected philosopher) Franz Magnis-Suseno has gone so far as to label the legislators behind the enactment of the UUP as shameless
Answer: The House now has the surplus of power -- they want to regulate all political aspects of the state, including the public's private realm -- but lacks a sense of ethics as a parliament. As a result, the House is omnipresent and arrogant. Actually, legal products that provoke controversies, like the UUP, should be abolished. Law should present peaceful coexistence among citizens, not otherwise.
It is obvious that the legal content of the UUP is aimed at serving the morals of the majority; It reflects the symptoms of the ever-creeping sharia (law). In modern politics, law should be based on constitutional assumptions that can be tested. Law can't be based on religious morals because religious morals are absolute for the adherents of the religion and thus incontestable. Religion does not fall under the falsification principle. Religious morals can not become the morals of legislation.
Rocky is of the opinion that state politics should be based on secular ideology -- such that is testable and falsifiable.
On the possibility of a secular state
When asked whether he proposed the idea that a secular state is the solution for Indonesia, Rocky joked: "The state doesn't know the phone number of God and the address of heaven. So, don't ever try to deliberate on heaven."
However, it does not mean that the state is not allowed to interfere when religious conflicts erupt. Rocky said, "There's no problem with those embracing religious absolutism, but the state should prevent with absolute conviction the people from committing violence."
"When the state punished Rizieq (FPI's leader, Rizieq Shihab), it was not because he was the leader of the FPI, but because he instigated violence (Rizieq received a sentence of 18 months in jail for his role in instigating violence against a pro-pluralism rally in June).
There will always be the potential for theological disagreements between the Ahmadiyah sect and (mainstream) Islam to result in public clashes. How should the state solve this problem?
A: In such an instance, the state must not say one word that reflects bias. If there's a clash, punishment should be handed out based on criminal law, not on (religious) doctrines. The state has no right to protect religious dogmas, has no right to judge them.
It is the right of every citizen to embrace certain dogma as far as they do not commit crime in defending their dogma. So, it is impossible to settle (a clash of dogmas), thus, don't try to deliberate final regulations because the state has no authority and capability to determine whether someone would go to heaven or to hell.
How should democracy be maintained?
Principally, uncontested world views should not be in currency, because our democracy acknowledges political changes every five years (through general elections). Citizens do not elect God in general elections, do they?
How does human rights fit into the framework of democracy?
Issues related to human rights can not be settled through electoral democracy. There should be no final, unchangeable, moral regulations. Morals are always in the making, they change in line with shifting world views.
Social and cultural discourses will come to an end with the finality of moral (regulation). (If that is so) it is the first step toward totalitarianism.
So, what's your suggestion?
Actually, the government should make a statement that Indonesia is a secular state, that the state does not interfere in the private realm of its citizens. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.
Unfortunately, (those within) the government prefer to take advantage of the situation (the rise of identity politics). The government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is riding the tidal wave of majoritarian rule.
On many occasions, I was involved in Constitutional Court hearings as an expert witness. Several times I encountered parties that brought religious arguments to the court sessions, but the judges did not reject those arguments.
Rocky is not against anything religious, "Religious proposals should first be converted into the language of the public if they are presented as political proposals. For example, if a party proposes religious justice, they should elaborate on the issue, making it relevant to, for instance, CSR, progressive taxes and so on. Religious terms should be convertible to programs on justice and rights issues."
In this way, parties also have their roles in civic education, "But, what we witness now, instead of trying to work for civic education, political parties are designed to produce demagogues instead of pedagogues," he said.
Is it a symptom of a failed state?
No, not yet ... it reflects a state that is without direction. We have a nation rich in opportunities -- a land of opportunities -- but it is being managed by opportunists.
So, what's your proposal?
The President should come up with a public address stating that fundamentalism grows faster than economic growth and that the situation is alarming (because areas with poor economic conditions are hotbeds for the mushrooming of religious fundamentalism). But, we can not build hopes on a president who is riding a tidal wave of the majority. Politics are conducted pragmatically, not as a pedagogy.
Silent Majority
Rocky said of the theory that the majority is keeping silent witness to the rise of fundamentalism and the politicization of religion, "There is a power game, silent power behind the silent majority, which at the same time is silently proud that religion has become the identity of the nation, and that to keep silent will benefit political Islam in general.
"(Under normal circumstances) there should have been a public outcry (against the abuse of religion), but it has not been heard. The mentality of the silent majority has become hegemonic."
Why do you think conservatism and radicalism have been readily embraced of late?
Fundamentalists "read" public apathy fueled by a democracy that has failed to evenly distribute its economy; The first then propose "Islamic order" as an alternative.
As conservative and radical ideas are culturally accepted, then (their agents) are given the chance to politically consolidate. Over the last decade, the site (for the consolidation) had been student campuses. So, the cultural acceptance has come through a long process, resulting in the sharia-driven legal products.
What's your opinion on Islam in Indonesia now?
It mingles with political ambition. Cultural Islam has become secondary. Islam is treated as an installation to accumulate power.
No comments:
Post a Comment