Gus Dur and the Nation’s Problems

KOMPAS/LASTI KURNIA

Alim (wearing Santa’s cap), 30, a resident of Tangerang, attends the 7th anniversary of the death of cleric and former president K.H. Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid at his estate on Feb. 23, 2016 in Ciganjur, Jakarta. Alim said at the time that it was not the first occasion that he had worn the hat to the event, and that he had worn it for the past three years as a symbol of tolerance.

Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid departed us nine years ago, but the memory of his unparalleled personality remains alive in all of us. In our collective memory, Gus Dur was a man of many attributes: an ordinary man and a humorist, a Muslim activist who often drew controversy and an intellectual, and a humanitarian statesman and cleric.

In the tradition of semiotics, Gus Dur would be a manuscript filled with many symbols to be defined.

Of his various personas, many of us may remember him – a grandson of the legendary Muslim cleric and Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) founder Hasyim Asyari – for his controversies. Some believed him to be controversial from his opinion pieces published in the 1980s in national newspapers. Others knew him from his ideas and policies when he led NU, and still others remembered him most for his controversial policies as the founder of the National Awakening Party (PKB) and Indonesia’s fourth president.

A variety of meanings

There are a variety of meanings in Gus Dur’s controversial personality. In the preferential religious traditions of the NU community, being controversial has never been a problem. At a certain level, it appears to signify the level of a cleric’s religious piety. Under the concept known as jadzab, being controversial is seen as a trait unique to those who have been “blessed” by God.

The phenomenon refers to a Sufi term for people with the unique ability to uncover and see the true nature of God. Therefore, it was understandable that Gus Dur was deemed a waliyullah (friend of Allah) whose messages were often difficult to understand by common people and were therefore deemed controversial.

In the academic tradition, in order to understand the “text” that is Gus Dur, one would be required to undertake a study semiotic works or procedural definitions of the symbols that are scattered around us. Gus Dur’s controversial ideas and attitude did not occur in a vacuum, but rather marked the psychological atmosphere of a certain, indicative phenomenon.

In many aspects, Gus Dur’s controversial moves and ideas in his life were indicative of the destructive realities brewing in society, such as the growing spread of primordial identities, sectarian sentiments and religious fundamentalism borne in the sociopolitical system of the era. Take, for example, his ideas on the synonymity of

assalamu’alaikum with “good morning” (1987), that God does not need any defenders (1982), the theology of Neighborhood Units (1989) and acceptance of Pancasila as the sole principle (1983, 1992).

These were all manifestations of Gus Dur’s cultural resistance to the destructive tendencies of the people of the era that were moving towards national divisions, including the growing stereotyping among Muslims of rumored Christian proselytization, the government’s excessive suspicion of Muslims on the issue of the Islamic conversion of the state, poor religious tolerance and the tendency for a scripture-based school of thought and truth-claiming among Muslims of the time.

Gus Dur’s cultural movement

Amid the present rise of destructive tendencies in religious fundamentalism and corruption in the country – bolstered by the atmosphere of the struggle of power ahead of the 2019 election – our brains can recall the old memories of Gus Dur’s controversial cultural movements.

There appears to be a longing for the symbols of cultural resistance, or counterculture, against the destructive tendencies of the current sociopolitical system. Discourses on “us vs. the other” have spread massively on social media. The Corruption Eradication Commission’s (KPK) arrests of political elites, businesspeople and bureaucrats have seemingly become a common sight.

Ironically, amid this reality, almost all the energy of our religious institutions and figures are being used for practical and pragmatic political interests of the 2019 election. Furthermore, the grand narrative in the moves and ideas of our religious institutions and figures seem to be moving towards engendering identity politics. Just look at how religious symbols are being used in the narrative of the binary opposition: kyai versus ulema, istighasah kubro versus tabligh akbar, “satanic parties” versus “godly parties” and so on. It seems that all sides are struggling to gain the political identity as “God’s frontline defenders”.

In our beloved country’s multiparty political system, whether you wish to admit it or not, it is difficult to avoid any political pragmatism. This is because the spirit of religious atavism (solidarity) is seen as an effective political asset for gaining support to the seat of power. If not careful, this may lead at a certain level to social fragmentation, symbolic deformation of religion as rahmatan lil alamin (blessing for the universe) and the rise of grassroots conflicts.

In line with this reality, the massive use of religious energy for pragmatic interests in a political power struggle is surely unwise, let alone using religion as part of a sociopolitical system that encourages people’s destructive tendencies.

Therefore, it is high time for us all to reposition religion in the sphere of civil society instead of political society: to reposition religion as part of the symbolic system of the anticorruption movement, the counterterrorism movement and the people’s movement for tolerance and humanitarianism.

In this way, the work of cultural institutions and religious figures in pushing for the creation of socio-religious formations that are democratic, fair and honest may be effective in the country.

We need to reflect on Gus Dur’s idea of “God Needs No Defense” that was published in 1982 in a national magazine: “Islam needs to be developed, not to be confronted with people’s attacks. Allah’s truth will not be diminished by people’s doubts. God needs no defense, even if He would certainly not object to being defended. Whether our defense [of Him] has any meaning or not will only become clear in the future.” (Lukman Hakim, Lecturer, School of Proselytization and Communications, Sunan Ampel State Islamic University, Surabaya)