, The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Wed, 10/18/2006 10:33 AM | Opinion
If the latest opinion poll by the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI) is any indication, then the combined votes of all the Islamist parties in Indonesia will plunge to 9 percent in the 2009 elections, from more than 20 percent in 2004. The survey, however, is not so comprehensive as to allow us to draw any strong conclusions about the direction of Islamist parties, let alone explain their ups and downs.
More interesting than the survey is the presence of Islamist parties in politics. One is immediately reminded of what the late Nurcholish Madjid, one of Indonesia's great Islamic thinkers, had to say on the topic: ""Islam Yes, Islamist Party No!"" This statement in the late 1970s launched an exhaustive debate about the pros and cons of Islamist parties (or any party using religious symbols, for that matter) contesting general elections in the country.
Now that the LSI is spotlighting Islam and politics again, it begs the question, does Indonesia really need Islamist parties, especially since the poll says they are losing their appeal among Indonesian voters.
Several countries with huge Muslim populations have already banned political parties using Islamic symbols. But each of these countries, like Turkey, Tunisia, Algeria and Nigeria, reached these decisions through different paths, including violent suppression. They could hardly be used as a model for Indonesia.
If and when Indonesia decides to ban Islamist parties, it will have to go through the democratic process to reach a national consensus.
There are some very compelling reasons why it is time we rethink the presence of political parties that use religious symbols.
Our own modern history provides the most powerful argument. For much of the last 61 years, our time and attention have been consumed by whether Indonesia is a religious state or a secular state, about the place of Islam in politics and the battle to impose sharia, the Islamic law.
At the national level, the matter has been settled many times over. The democratic elections in 1955, 1999 and 2004 showed that parties with Islamist agenda never enjoy the support of more than 20 percent of the voters. This should be a sufficient indicator of the aspirations of Indonesians, including the majority Muslims, on the questions of Islam and politics.
There was a huge debate about the place of Islam in Indonesia when our founding fathers were drafting the 1945 constitution, with the secularists winning the day. They debated whether Islamic laws should be applied to Indonesian Muslims and a separate law to non-Muslims. There was another big debate over the same issue during the constitutional amendment in 2000-2002. Again the secular camp won.
One would have thought that the matter was settled: The majority have accepted that Indonesia is a secular state, but one that respects and observes universal religious values.
But courtesy of the Islamist parties, the issue keeps resurfacing again and again and it is taking time, attention and resources away that could have been allocated for more serious nation-building activities and to catch up with the rest of the world. As a nation, we seem to have not moved an inch precisely because of this perennial issue.
The latest technique by the Islamist parties is to push their agenda through unsuspecting regional areas. One province and more than 20 districts are now governed by some versions of sharia.
The danger of using (or rather abusing) religion in politics is that it risks splitting this pluralist nation along religious lines, between the majority Muslims versus non-Muslims, along with a false notion of the righteous versus the infidels.
Although Indonesian voters have not fallen for this kind of debate, the risk of a civil war is very real and should not be underestimated. The communal conflicts in Poso, Central Sulawesi, and, until recently, in Maluku, serve as painful reminders of what our religious differences can do if they are not managed carefully.
The one compelling argument against banning Islamist parties is that we live in a democracy. Our constitution guarantees freedom of association, including the right of people to form political parties on the bases of any platform, barring Communism, which is still banned.
Here is the rub. The Islamist parties will continue to campaign on their Islamist agenda, even while they know they are unlikely to win majority support to push their agenda nationally. They also know that some percentage of the people (between 10 and 20 percent) will vote for them, enough to get them seats in parliament. So they continue to champion their lost causes because, at the end of the day, Islam to them is just a political commodity. They have no real vision, let alone strategy to improve the lot of the nation. Nation building is probably the last of their worries. That's no way to run politics.
Nurcholish Madjid may have been right when he rejected the notion of an Islamist party. In his honor, we should reexamine at his thoughts and vision.
The question that the nation needs to ask is no longer whether we should adopt sharia or turn into an Islamic state. These have both been rejected outright. The question that we should be asking is whether the presence of Islamist parties is beneficial or detrimental to Indonesia's future.
No comments:
Post a Comment