The idea of diverse citizenship here is equal to what Rosaldo called cultural citizenship and Kymlicka called multicultural citizenship.
By
AHMAD SUAEDY
·4 minutes read
Kompas/Didie SW
.
Constitutional Court (MK) Ruling No. 97/PUU-XIV/2016 on indigenous native faiths, which was issued on November 7 this year and is a judicial review of Article 61 Point 1 and Article 64 Point 22 of Law No. 24/2013 on Civil Administrations, has widespread implications on public services. The ruling ensures equal treatment for adherents of religions and native faiths both in the Constitution and other laws.
This implication is evident not only in the ability for native faith adherents to write in their respective faiths in their e-IDs but also in the transformation of citizenship doctrines and practices in Indonesia. MK rules that the word “religion” in Article 29 Point 2 violates the Constitution and has no binding legal power so long as it does not cover “native faiths”. In other words, adherents of native faiths are equal to religious adherents before the law.
Despite founding father Soekarno’s claim that the weltanschauung of Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity) has been internalized within the archipelago’s communities for thousands of years, in reality, the practices have had ebbs and flows in line with political shifts and regime changes. This MK ruling therefore serves as an important momentum in reformulating diversity in the implementation of Indonesian citizenship and following this as best as possible with moves to synchronize prevailing laws passed both before and after the constitutional amendment and to transform institutions to ensure this.
Articles of the Civil Administration Law are far from being the only explicitly discriminatory rules in Indonesia. There are still many other laws and their derivate regulations, passed both before and after the constitutional amendment, that remain discriminatory toward certain groups, especially native faith adherents. One example is Article 30 Point 3 of Law No. 16/2004 on the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) on the Coordinating Board for Monitoring Mystical Beliefs in Society (Bakor Pakem) and Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 on Religious Blasphemy.
Collective rights
The idea of diverse citizenship here is equal to what Renalto Rosaldo (1994) called cultural citizenship and Will Kymlicka (1995) called multicultural citizenship. This includes citizenship doctrines and practices that not only respect citizens as individuals but also respect all relevant cultures and traditions, especially those of the minorities, the weak, the marginalized and the discriminated-against.
The state should have laws to protect these people’s traditions and cultures and to treat them equally in all matters of statehood. The implication of this guaranteed protection is an assurance of access to public services both physical and non-physical such as security and protection from fear without being discriminated against for their traditions and beliefs.
Institutional transformation
It needs to be acknowledged that institutional transformation (Jacquest Bertrand, 2004) for a new formation that accommodates ethnic, religious, race-based and regional rights has been moving slowly despite the foundations having been built since the 1998 reform. Groups of native faith adherents and minority religious sects experience the most arduous journey in obtaining this accommodation and protection.
This is not only because they are minorities with no power but also because obstructions from adherents of criticism-proof mainstream religions and conceptual doctrines. Referring to Indonesia’s plurality of cultures, traditions and religions, a diverse citizenship is important to be formulated in a broader sense and be synchronized with laws that remain discriminatory and institutional transformation to accommodate it.
For illustration, the groups that were first accommodated in the reform-era institutional transformation were political parties and regional powers through the issuance of the Regional Autonomy Law. Next were regions embroiled in vertical conflicts, such as Papua and Aceh, through the issuance of Law No. 18/1999 and later revised as Law No. 11/2006 on Aceh Administration Special Autonomy and Law No. 21/2001 on Papua Special Autonomy.
Now is the turn for adherents of native faiths and religious sects to obtain the same kind of assurance and protection. The foundation that necessitates institutional transformation to accommodate them in our statehood system is found on Article 29 Point 2 and Article 28 as a whole on human rights. The Constitution’s Article 18B Points 1 and 2 also specifically mandates the government to recognize and facilitate regional diversity, units of local administration and customary laws.
Many of Indonesia’s indigenous native faiths are closely linked to cultural traditions and local social structures. Public services for native faith adherents should be made available unconditionally, thereby relieving the government of the hassles in inventorying these groups, sects and organizations. The government should only provide the institutions in a general bureaucratic system.
