Why Our Politics is Murky
.
It is difficult to deny that politics in this country has been a bit cloudy lately. The feeling of mutual suspicion among community groups and in state-community relations tends to heighten.
What is really happening? Why has our Indonesian-ness suddenly become so fragile at a time when we are about to celebrate almost two decades of reform?
One of the sources of the political commotion, namely the two rounds of Jakarta gubernatorial elections 2017, is ended. The Baswedan-Sandiaga Uno pair won the fierce battle, defeating the incumbent pair Basuki Tjahaja Purnama(“Ahok”)-Djarot Saiful Hidayat with a substantial vote-count difference.
However, ironically the nuances of conversation, interaction, and social relations post-gubernatorial election have not fully recovered as before. Even though the intensity of hoaxes, slander, and hate speech that had previously appeared on various social media has now waned, social reconciliation has not fully taken place.
A senior colleague described the post-election atmosphere in his neighborhood. Prior to the election, neighbors diligently waited and greeted each other at the end of an alley before they went to pray at a nearby mosque. After prayers, they often did not go home immediately, but had light discussions on many matters related to the latest political issues. However, after the election, such an atmosphere disappeared. Even though they still pass in the same alley and pray at the same mosque, there are no longer any neighbors who wait and greet at the end of the alley. There are no more light discussions with laughter and joking like before. Several people tend to avoid direct contact with their colleagues.
Not a few similar stories were experienced by other Jakarta residents – and possibly even those outside Jakarta –who received unfriendly treatment from colleagues, neighbors and relatives due to different political preferences in the general election and regional elections. Then, what is wrong with this country?
Failure to emigrate
The murky political atmosphere has actually existed since the 2014 presidential election. The emergence of the two candidate pairs, Joko Widodo-Jusuf Kalla (Jokowi-JK) and Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Rajasa, in that election did not only split the national politics of the two opposing political camps, but also left political wounds in those supporters who failed to "hijrah" (emigrate) – or,to use the popular terminology, to move on – from the post-presidential election period until the present day. Even though their respective coalition of supporters, the Great Indonesia Coalition (KIH) and the Red and White Coalition (KMP), finally "liquidated", this does not seem to have happened in part of the grass root community.
The political divide that colored the presidential election should have ended and finished when Jokowi-JK was elected and Prabowo-Hatta, the presidential and vice presidential candidates who lost, admitted their defeat in a gentlemanly manner. That is also what should have happened when Anies-Sandi won the Jakarta gubernatorial election and Basuki-Djarot admitted defeat and congratulated the governor- and deputy governor-elect. A "liquid" and reconciliatory post-general and -regional election politics is needed in this country to proceed and so political promises can soon be realized by the chosen pair.
However, post-presidential election 2014, political reconciliation at the elite level appears to be "false", while social reconciliation at the grassroots level is not happening. As a result, political and social injuries do not only never heal, but also tend to be preserved. Ironically, not a few people or groups of people want to work professionally as agents to "nurture" these political and social wounds, perhaps even "maintaining" political vengeance.
Common sense does not work
Because of this, the political dynamics of the Jakarta gubernatorial election did not fully relate to the contestation of ideas for a better Jakarta. Almost always, there is a passenger with a hidden political agenda behind a political contest, which should have taken place fairly and sportively. The agenda can be very diverse, ranging from political vengeance to power play, and to racial politics. Political vengeance, for example, is not necessarily a matter of win-lose in elections, but rather because the "owners of the vengeance" feel that their octopus business or economic comfort would be disrupted if the political regime were in the hands of other people and/or political groups.
That is why when Basuki, popularly called Ahok, mentioned "Al-Maidah 51" in his speech in the Thousand Islands, it was a “collapsed durian” (windfall) for his political enemies. It was no longer a matter of whether Ahok was really denigrating a religion or slandering the Quran. Since the case of religious blasphemy against writer HB Jassin (1968) –Sastra Magazine in its No. 8/August 1968 edition published his short story "The Sky is Increasingly Cloudy", the contentof which was considered to insult Prophet Muhammad and Islam –through the Monitor tabloid case of Arswendo Atmowiloto (1990), of Lia Eden who personified herself as Mother Mary (2006 and 2009), and of Ahmad Musadeq who promoted himself as a "Prophet" (through the Qiyadah Islamiyah teaching, 2007, and Gafatar, 2016), there has never been a clear definition on what is meant by and what is the scope of "blasphemy".
Also, it has become irrelevant to discuss here, whether Article 156 and 156a of the Criminal Code on religious blasphemy is really a "rubber article" that can be misused by anyone, at any time, and for any purpose. Why? Because common sense does not work in Ahok\'s case and hundreds of other "religious blasphemy" cases. When common sense does not work, the law becomes "wild", and the direction of the sword or justice is ultimately based on the subjective interpretation of law enforcement apparatuses as "representatives of God". The controversy of the verdict handed down by the panel of judges of the North Jakarta District Court against Ahok I think, confirms this.
Pandora’s box
The problem becomes increasingly complex because Ahok is an incumbent gubernatorial figure who is not just strict, temperamental, and uncompromising in cracking down on corrupters, but is also a figure who carries a double minority burden, as a Christian and at the same time, as a Chinese. As a result, the contest of candidates in the Jakarta gubernatorial election did not only open Pandora’s box of primordial issues based on ethnicity, religion, race and inter-group relations (SARA), but also revived the classical debate over our Indonesian-ness, including sensitive issues, religious relations and politics (the state).
Mass rallies flying the flag of "Defending Islam" on the one hand and "Defending the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI)" and diversity on the other, both before and after the Jakarta gubernatorial election, are a reflection of opening the harmful and unwanted Pandora’s box. Imagine, it has never happened before that the level of mutual suspicion and distrust among various elements of our nation is as worrisome as it is felt at present. It is not surprising that President Joko Widodo feels the need to meet many public figures on many occasions with a very clear, repeated message that we all stand on the constitution and must return to the ideals of the republic which was proclaimed in 1945.
The invitation of the President to return to the ideals of the nation’s founders –the unitary state in the form of a republic which is based on diversity as the basic philosophy of Pancasila – is certainly very reasonable and therefore deserves to be appreciated. The cost would be very high for this nation if the political and social divide leads to sectarian conflicts that could tear this nation apart, like what has been experienced by a number of countries in the Middle East and eastern Europe.
Nevertheless, realizing the expectations of President Jokowi in the short term is no easy job. The problem is that the atmosphere of mutual suspicion and murky politics are at the root of the complex problem. Whatever it is, the atmosphere of our nation today is the product of accumulated negligence that has been piling up for decades. Several factors can be observed in this.
State ambivalence
First is the ambivalence of the state in responding to the rise of radical religious movements as well as the growth of various splinter religions, so that what is publicly visible is the absence of state consistency in law enforcement. In relation to the rise of religious teachings, for example, the state is mandated by the Constitution to protect the rights and freedoms of every citizen, including the freedom of religion and belief. On the other hand, state institutions and institutions representing the state, such as local governments, military district commands, local police, Koramil and others, tend to allow and even frequently facilitate the domination and repression of a community group over other groups.
This is, for example, what was experienced by the Ahmadiyah congregation in a number of regions and the Shia congregation in Sampang, Maruda. They are citizens who have the right to state protection, but have been displaced from their homes by their compatriots simply because of different religious teachings and/or beliefs. Aside from the ambiguous attitude of the state appears to be the absence of state consistency in upholding the supremacy of law. The flourishing of radical and anti-Pancasila groups such as Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia is basically the product of this inconsistency.
Second is the failure of the government since Indonesian independence to manage Indonesian-ness based on diversity. There is nearly no seriousness to strengthening the national foundation. Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity) stops at being a mere motto. For more than 70 years of independence no serious attempt has been made at how religious, racial, ethnic and regional diversity is converted, managed, and capitalized as an asset in creating a solid, just, and prosperous Indonesia.
The government has prioritized national development instead. The endless focus inthe pursuit of economic growth reflects this. It gives little attention to the fact that the impact of excessive orientation to economic growth is a heightened and widening social inequality. It is not surprising that a handful of Indonesians control the majority of the nation’s economic assets. The problem becomes complicated when the majority of those who control the economy come from minority groups, both in terms of religion and ethnicity.
Third, even though the reform era has been ongoing for almost two decades, it is hard to deny that our nation cannot "emigrate" to this day, and draw a clear line from the authoritarian regime of the New Order. The New Order\'s viewpoint, which tends to institutionalize mutual distrust among the various elements of the nation, is reproduced and nurtured, not by the state, but by professional agents who conspire with shady businessmen, rotten politicians, and religious radicals. This is evident from the efforts to provoke indigenous people against the non-indigenous, fanning sentiments based on SARA – especially between Muslims and the "infidels" – as well as giving riseto a phobia of the "revival" of the now defunct Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and communism, all of which are replicas of Soeharto regime politics.
It is not impossible that these conflict-keeping operations will use the windfall of Ahok\'s case to not just block Ahok, but also to stop Ahok\'s political mentor, namely President Jokowi, at the very least from remaining in power until 2019. It can be predicted that not a few owners of the octopus businesses,whose convenience is disrupted by the policies of Jokowi and Ahok and which are harmful to them, will continue to maintain murky politics in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion that worries us all.
Therefore, there is no other choice for President Jokowi but to stand firmly with the Constitution and uphold the ideals of the founders of the Republic, which is based on diversity as crystallized in the basic state philosophy of Pancasila. As well, no other option remains for civil society except to maintain common sense and sanity in order not to participate in the deceitfulness of shady businessmen, rotten politicians and religious radicals.
SYAMSUDDIN HARIS
Research Professor of LIPI
