, The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Fri, 08/10/2007 1:00 PM | Opinion
Zulkieflimansyah, Jakarta
A public debate about the role of Islamist political parties in Indonesia is indeed a healthy sign that our new democratic space is thriving. I cannot agree more with Jusuf Wanandi's argument (The debate continues -- how democratic is the PKS?, The Jakarta Post, Aug. 6, 2007) that open dialog on these questions should be allowed and even encouraged.
If there are serious doubts, concerns or questions about the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), or any other Islamist political movement, they should be aired openly, as has been done here. Only then can there be an opportunity for an open and fair exchange.
I fully understand the point made that perhaps there is a disjuncture between the views of younger PKS leaders, including myself, and more senior leaders/members of the party. This is not unique to PKS and reflects the generational shift that must occur in any living organization.
It is precisely this generational shift that I drew attention to in my previous article when I asked that people view the PKS as an evolving entity and accord it the necessary space to change from within. My fear is that Jusuf Wanandi's rebuttal may have missed the significance of this point in the overall picture.
That there are conservative, even hard-line voices within the PKS cannot be denied. Many of the first generation PKS leaders were ulema who led underground cells during the embittered Soeharto years when Islamic political forces were marginalized. These ulema were trained in the Middle East and for many years believed it their duty to lead the struggle for Islam.
The first winds of change within the PKS occurred with the election of student leaders on several major university campuses around 1994. These student leaders eventually came to represent the second generation of PKS leaders. Most were educated in secular universities at home and went abroad to further their studies, returning to assume political office under the banner of the PKS during the 2004 elections.
This second generation of leaders marks a break with the more conservative first generation ulema. Most, such as myself, are from secular universities, but more importantly have had far greater political/democratic experience when political liberalization in the early 1990s enabled us to compete for positions in the student senates of the major universities. Our educational backgrounds and experiences made for somewhat different views vis--vis the more conservative ulema within the party.
There is now an emerging third generation of PKS members who are being groomed for party positions in 2009 and beyond. Their experiences and exposure are understandably different from the first and second generation leadership. Many are being trained at a time when the party has already achieved a certain political presence at the national level. This new generation is also coming to the fore at a time when the party is grappling with questions regarding its future role in the government. Their exposure to others beyond the PKS is also significantly more intense. Their worldviews will be different from mine.
This is not to say that the generational differences reflect an automatic liberalizing tendency within the PKS. Progress and growth within any living entity hardly moves in a linear fashion. My point is to draw attention to the dynamism within the movement that critics of the PKS must at least acknowledge. There is a learning process at play here, albeit slow and at times messy and difficult. Although the first generation of ulema had far more conservative views compared to my generation, they too are learning through their interaction with us.
This dynamism within the party must be carefully understood by those concerned about the role of Islamist political parties in Indonesia's future. Only then can space be accorded to the movement so that the necessary reforms and learning can evolve from within.
I reiterate my earlier argument that it defeats the democratic purpose when attacks are constantly leveled at the movement, often without justification, inevitably undermining the efforts of many within for reform, and pushing the party into a corner.
For example, Jusuf Wanandi questions the ability of the PKS to play within the democratic rules of the game when internally the party is apparently not democratic. He points to the Majlis Syura, made up of a few people at the top, making all the decisions.
Let me clarify that the Majlis Syura is not made up of a few people. Rather, it serves like a senate/congress. It is made up of close to 100 representatives who are chosen to represent members in the various provinces. These representatives sit in the Majlis Syura representing the interests of members in local areas and ensuring their voice is heard at the national level.
They deliberate on strategic issues such as the party's position with regard to the presidential election. Deliberations can be quite extensive, involving additional research and consultations with the various departments within the party. A final decision is reached at the end of all the deliberations and consultations.
Additionally, contrary to the dominant view, the Majlis Syura is not made up of only ulema who hark back to the Koran as a reference point for all decisions made. Rather, many of the representatives that sit on the Majlis Syura today are professionals and come from a non-ulema background from within their local areas. Indeed, the Majlis Syura represents a small experiment with democratic practices, albeit an imperfect one, that the party upholds.
Such examples of misinformation and stereotyping reflect a real need for greater understanding between those of us from the Islamist political movements and those from the outside who seem to continue to view us with persistent suspicion. Having open dialogs such as this offers an opportunity to set the record straight. This is why I am in full agreement with Jusuf Wanandi's point that such open dialogs be allowed.
At the same time, a worry lingers that instead of dialog, the PKS will continue to be attacked simply because it upholds an Islamist label, and that every which way it moves it loses. True dialog can only occur with mutual respect for each other, and that includes respect for the PKS as a living entity within the democratic space.
The writer is deputy chairman of the PKS faction at the House of Representatives and a lecturer in the Postgraduate Program at the School of Economics, University of Indonesia. He can be reached at zulkieflimansyah@gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment