http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/religions-place-in-indonesia-is-not-in-halls-of-power/506367 Religion’s Place in Indonesia Is Not in Halls Of Power Johannes Nugroho | March 23, 2012
When the Constitutional Court recently ruled that children born outside of marriage would have a legal claim on their fathers, a chairman of the Indonesian Council of Ulema, Ma’ruf Amin, lambasted the judicial body as “playing God” and issuing a ruling in contravention of Islamic laws. The controversial ruling aside, the rebuke by the cleric has once again reminded us how far the country is from being a true democracy, where every citizen is aware that the laws of the state are above those of religions. In Western democracies, where church and state by and large are separate entities, religious groups can act as pressure groups in the lawmaking process but no more so than any other pressure groups can. By contrast, religious organizations in Indonesia, especially those connected with mainstream Islam, appear to wield democratically disproportionate influence on the lawmaking process and the application of law itself. In the fasting month of Ramadan, we still often hear news of food sellers being terrorized by hard-line Muslim groups such as the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) for exercising the basic right of an Indonesian citizen (the right to earn a living) as granted by the Constitution. And yet our law enforcers seem reluctant to prosecute such violations. What is worse, there appears to be very little political will in the government to act against religious bullying for fear of offending Muslims, or rather Muslim pressure groups, in the country. Our Constitution is far from being ambiguous about the fact that the country is not a theocracy in which religious laws take precedence over their normative counterparts, and yet it is the ambiguity practiced by its enforcers that is the true bane of rule of the law. And with political haggling now normative in legislative proceedings since Reformasi, the country is sinking further into legal ambiguity when it comes to separating religion from the state. In fact, in this matter, the New Order regime under Suharto was much more stringently successful. Ironically, the recalcitrant Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI) itself was formed by the late dictator as a body through which the government could regulate religious rulings to conform with those of the administration. The state intelligence agency used to send out informants to mosques to ensure the sermons were free from provocative and controversial material. It was not uncommon for any cleric delivering radical message to be arrested for questioning on the spot before his congregation in Suharto’s days. Suharto was clearly a great believer in the supremacy of state laws above religion. Jehovah’s Witnesses were banned from Indonesia, as the sect openly taught its members to refuse to salute the national flag, as that would amount to idolatry. Many of the strong-arm tactics adhered to by the New Order regime against encroachment by religious groups against the state indubitably infringed on basic human rights. As such they may not be applicable under more democratic auspices. But the state has swung from one extreme to another since then by allowing religious pressure groups to imagine and hope for the day when this is a country governed with religious laws. The government has clearly mistaken democracy for legal spinelessness, or perhaps dithering indecision. The moves are sometimes subtle but still noticeably alarming. When President Suharto made a national address to the nation, he would start his speech by saying, “My fellow countrymen and women.” These days, President Susilo Bambang opens his speeches using the Arabic greeting synonymous with Islam to address a nation made of a multitude of faiths and traditions. Naturally, as a Muslim, Suharto did not shun the Islamic greeting. He used it when making a speech to a largely Muslim gathering, but in the national context, he never swerved from emphasizing as national leader, he was above religious favoritism in public. Though the current president continually seeks to remind everyone how moderate and tolerant he is, his actions seem to betray his words. For the previously rubber-stamping body such as MUI to start barking against state institutions is indeed a recent phenomenon. Ideally, institutions such as MUI should have been disbanded with the advent of Reformasi. And it is the government’s duty, through both education and real action, to convey to the nation that the laws of the state take precedence over others. Religious groups may try to influence the lawmaking process through lobbying and other channels permissible under the law. The days when religious leaders can invoke the authority of the divine to get their way should truly be over or we all risk being dragged down into the Dark Ages of the old. Johannes Nugroho is a writer based in Surabaya. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Post message: [email protected] Subscribe : [email protected] Unsubscribe : [email protected] List owner : [email protected] Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
