•    HOME   
•    NEWS   
•    BUSINESS   
•    INTERNATIONAL   
•    TECH   
•    SPORTS   
•    LIFE & TIMES   
•    OPINION   
•    MY JAKARTA   
•    BLOGS   

When Jakarta Governor Fauzi Bowo recently attended the anniversary celebration of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) many accused him of tacitly endorsing an organization that takes the law into its own hands and promotes violence. The governor’s critics and the public in general want to see firm action taken against any practice of thuggery in the name of religion.

At the national level President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is also seen as a reluctant leader who shies away from his constitutional obligation to protect the religious rights of citizens. On Aug. 15 hundreds of Christians prayed near the National Monument to protest against the government’s inaction over attacks on churchgoers and the forced closure of churches. Even in his annual State of the Nation address on the eve of Independence Day, Yudhoyono did not go beyond making general statements in responding to religious radicals.

We must bear in mind that the persecution of the Christian minorities and Ahmadiyah can never be separated from the operations of political power. The manipulation of inter-religious conflict, widely practiced by the New Order authoritarian regime, has not really disappeared from the Indonesian political arena. For instance, the growing anti-Ahmadiyah sentiment has been used by candidates for district heads in West Java province to boost their popularity among voters.

Instead of seriously seeking a permanent solution to the conflict, in some instances local governments have become part of the problem. The irony of all this is that Yudhoyono himself insists on relying heavily on the active role of the governors, mayors and district heads to promote religious harmony in their jurisdictions. He does not seem to realize that faith-based intolerance is partly driven by discriminatory bylaws.

In defending itself against its critics, the government argues that there is no strong legal basis to disband a group or organization on the basis of its interpretation of a religious belief. Nor can we ask the government to use all-out military force to stop the anarchic activities of religious radicals.

It is a poor political education for the public to see our leaders remaining indifferent about blatant infringements of the Constitution. For instance, the government can be accused of violating human rights by omission if the police have repeatedly failed to prevent the violent attacks against religious minorities or their houses of worship.   

It is our unshakable commitment to obey the Constitution that binds us together as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation. Policymakers would do well to understand the political context of the emergence of religious radicalism in the post-Suharto era. From the perspective of political science, the process of democratization has opened the way for different groups to scramble for power and economic opportunities. Those who can accept democracy as the “only game in town” will join political parties as a vehicle to gain prominent position in the government and secure economic appropriations. Unfortunately, members of radical groups like the FPI have failed to join the democratic process.

Instead, in a desperate effort to promote their own political and economic survival, they have found anarchic activities in the name of religion as the most effective way to attract the attention of the government.

It is not enough for the government to make normative statements whenever the lawless activities of radical groups make headlines. No amount of such talk will prevent radicals from taking the law into their own hands. While it is important to strictly uphold the rule of law, there is a suggestion that the government should come up with a more comprehensive social and economic approach through which the members of the radical groups can engage in development projects which are funded by the government.

The Ministry of Religious Affairs should be able to propose a budget that can be allocated for this purpose. After all, one of the main functions of the ministry is to guide different religious congregations so that they can create peace and harmony in society.

State enterprises or private companies can also be asked to give groups training in order to increase their skill and productivity — the idea being that if they are busy with these positive activities they will have no time, and perhaps no reason, for making public disturbances.


Aleksius Jemadu is dean of the School of Social and Political Sciences at Pelita Harapan University in Tangerang.