SARA in the Political Year
Entering the 2018 political year, we have to raise an early warning signal for capitalizing on SARA issues.
.
Entering the 2018 political year, we have to raise an early warning signal for capitalizing on SARA (tribal affiliations, religion, race and intergroups) issues. If left unattended, the exploitation of SARA issues – especially religion and ethnicity issues – could not only cause social unrest, but it could also tear apart the unity of the nation and state.
It must be recognized that SARA issues constitute "thorns in the flesh" of our national body that could be exploited at any time by political brokers and adventurers in order to gain short-term benefits.
A high level of alertness needs to installed, because the waves of the simultaneous regional elections in 171 regions will be the perfect ground for taking advantage of SARA issues. Behind each SARA issue is sure to be certain parties exploiting it politically for their short-term interests. Thus far, Indonesia has proven capable of surviving the destructive effects of SARA politics.
Last year’s gubernatorial election in Jakarta was the latest test for the resilience and flexibility of this nation in facing the SARA political onslaught. However, we should not be careless and arrogant against the possibility of SARA being politicized on a broader scale.
Mode of production
The politicization of religion in the public sphere is made possible because democracy offers space for contests of religious beliefs and values. In such a situation, the field of politics is seen by individuals or interest groups as a mode of production that promises both material (tangible) and immaterial (intangible) benefits.
Like a market, the political process of elections comprise a number of basic elements: producers or sellers (political elite), buyers (eligible voters), merchandise (SARA issues) and profits.
The commodification of religion and political reality converge on religious issues that are part of the belief or faith.
In this context, political brokers are indeed given an "advantage" in skillfully identifying which religious issues can be used as political ammunition in an electoral contest. Of course, the utilization of SARA issues occurs in the context of capitalizing on, exploiting and commodifying faith to gain a political victory (read: short-term benefit).
Eligible voters act as buyers who are easily attracted to political issues wrapped in religious narratives as an "investment" for the afterlife that promises heaven and other rewards. To borrow Weberian\'s theoretical framework, such behavior of voters is driven by traditional and emotional motives, not rational choices.
I imagine that the typology of traditional and affective voters covers a relatively significant amount of the voting population. Learning from last year’s Jakarta gubernatorial election, the victory of Anies Baswedan-Sandiaga Uno was determined partly by the mobilization of voters of this type.
Traditional and affective voters are indeed easily fooled by religious narratives. They easily make political choices on the basis of religious arguments, especially if such arguments are justified by sacred texts. This means they experience political myopia: unable to distinguish what is religion and what is politics. The two are considered one and the same, thanks to the cleverness of political brokers and elite clerics in mixing and legitimizing these issues.
They assume that if a political decision is justified by scripture , there is no alternative but to obey without any reservations.
On the other hand, for a number of elite clerics, the religious reality is like a "market" that also promises profits. Laurence R Iannacone (1995: 77) said, ”The combined actions of religious consumers and religious producers form a religious market that, like other markets, tends toward a steady-state equilibrium.”
In fact, the politicization and exploitation of religious faith can be a major obstacle in the creation of a full-fledged democracy (Amal Jamal, 2013:105). When the voting public is mobilized in the name of identity politics and populism, what emerges is the commodification of hatred, intolerance for words and deeds, and political segregation and favoritism for a false victory.
When this happens, the creation of a pluralistic community, one that is mutually tolerant and respectful of differences as guaranteed by a full democracy, is driven farther from expections.
Toward democratic maturity
Whatever choice the voting public will take amid SARA issues in the political year, the electoral process has indeed made this democracy healthy. In this context, even though they might be based on traditional and affective motives, each choice has met the requirements for a legitimate democracy.
In an electoral democracy, every vote counts. Each vote is important because it can contribute to victory. In this context, each voter will undoubtedly receive special treatment from the political elite as contributors to the coffers of victory. It is here that identity politics and religious populism are exploited to garner political votes.
However, the condition of the democracy that is created from such an electoral process is neither an ideal democracy, a full-fledged democracy or a maximal democracy, but a minimalist, procedural democracy. This kind of democracy, of course, does not correlate to improvements in the quality of life in overcoming various problems, such as poverty, socioeconomic disparities, unemployment, crime and malnutrition.
In reality, the type of democracy we aspire to must transcend a minimalist democracy toward a full or maximal democracy.
In order to achieve a full democracy, the only choice is the maturation of democracy. Democracy becomes mature not just through a peaceful, free and secret electoral process. More than this, a mature democracy is largely determined the quality of the voters, which is reflected in each choice made on the basis of sound rationality.
In the context of religious issues, the quality of political choice is not determined by whether the choices are justified in the literal meaning of a sacred text, but by the public good and public virtue (al-maslahah al-’ammah) at the heart of every religious doctrine.
The political elite and elite clerics should take actual responsibility for the democratic maturity of voters, instead of exploiting, capitalizing on and commodifying SARA issues. What must be realized together is the fact that public good and public virtue are frequently hidden, implicit and contextual. The problem is, these elites often define authenticity (al-ashalah) as something that is written textually, explicitly and literally.
Accordingly, they prefer to engage in contextual textualization rather than textual contextualization. As a result, the exploitation and commodification of religion in the public sphere recurs in every election.
Masdar Hilmy
Social Sciences Professor & Deputy Director of Postgraduate Programs at State Islamic University-Sunan Ampel Surabaya
