Clear programs are the way of democracy<\/p>\n
By Santi W.E. Soekanto<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Abdurrahman Wahid \"fights for democracy by
\nempowering the grassroots. As a Muslim figure, what is important
\nfor Gus Dur is to fight for the values of Islam. The fight for
\nhis group's interests takes second importance.<\/p>\n
\"By fighting for programs that are delineated in Islam, Gus
\nDur can then say that he is fighting for Islam. Which is why he
\ncan easily move among and be accepted by non-Muslim groups.<\/p>\n
\"Amien Rais is a politician who emphasizes his sectarian
\nidentity, whereas Gus Dur begins his endeavors with programs that
\nare based upon Islamic values. For Gus Dur, programs are more
\nimportant than identity. The Muslim community is one where the
\nteaching of Islam is implemented well. However, in addition to
\nspeaking up about programs, Gus Dur also speaks about the
\nsolidarity of the Muslim community (ummat).\"<\/p>\n
\"Gus Dur is a modern politician who anticipates changes in the
\ncommunity. In the future, political approaches that are based
\nupon programs will have a greater role to play, though this is
\nnot to say that sectarian politics will cease to be.\"<\/p>\n
No. The passages full of praise above have not been written by
\none of President Abdurrahman's ulema supporters who think he can
\ndo no wrong and are therefore ready to shed blood and die as
\nmartyrs in defense of his \"legitimate presidency.\"<\/p>\n
They are actually the words of the astute political scientist,
\nMelbourne-based Arief Budiman, in a 1995 article that compared
\nthe \"sectarian\/identity politics\" as opposed to \"program
\npolitics\", with the former being represented by leading
\npolitician Amien and the latter by Abdurrahman.<\/p>\n
Arief wrote the article in response to the journalist Arief
\nAfandi's attempt at describing Amien as engaging in \"high
\npolitics\" and Gus Dur as the proponent of politics that make use
\nof a cultural approach. Arief Afandi had contributed to a 1995
\nbook in Indonesian titled \"Up and Bottom Democracy: The Polemic
\non the Strategies of Struggle of Gus Dur and Amien Rais.\"<\/p>\n
As far as anyone can tell, Arief Budiman's political analysis
\nis as sharp as ever. If the passages no longer accurately portray
\nGus Dur, then it because he has so changed so much.<\/p>\n
Never mind many Muslim groups' accusations that Gus Dur has
\nactually betrayed Islam because of his alleged involvement in
\nscandals, maybe Arief's portrayal of Gus Dur has only become
\ninaccurate now -- when we have a different social and political
\nsetting than the one in which Arief placed Gus Dur, namely the
\nsetting of the New Order.<\/p>\n
Arief Budiman wrote further, that in contrast to Amien, \"Gus
\nDur often takes a critical stance against the government while
\nplacing himself closer to the grassroots. It is only sometimes
\nthat he uses the same language with the officials -- to the
\nsurprise of his supporters. Usually, though, Gus Dur would soon
\nreturn to his nature.\"<\/p>\n
Indeed Gus Dur might have been all that when he had to stand
\nin opposition to Soeharto. Now that Gus Dur is the ruler, the
\nportrayal is certainly an inaccuracy.<\/p>\n
But then again, maybe Gus Dur has not changed. What people
\nthink of now as his shortcomings as President have always
\nexisted. Those claiming to have been disillusioned have no one
\nelse to blame but themselves -- never mind their excuse about
\nhaving to choose a lesser evil than Megawati Soekarnoputri or
\nB.J. Habibie in the 1999 presidential election.<\/p>\n
In January 1999, Gus Dur and Amien Rais behaved as if they had
\nburied their decade-old hatchets and posed for photographs,
\nshaking hands to display their new found friendliness.<\/p>\n
They vowed to fight together for four purposes: the
\nrestoration of security and order, the implementation of fair and
\ndemocratic elections, the positive convergence between their
\norganizations, the Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama, and the
\nupholding of equality before the law, even with regard to former
\npresident Soeharto.<\/p>\n
It is not difficult to see that the two leaders have failed
\nall targets. Insecurity and terror are the order of the day in
\nJakarta, Maluku, Aceh and elsewhere. The 1999 elections might
\nhave been praised by the West as the first democratically held
\nsince 1955, despite irregularities, but that did not compel
\nanyone to respect the results.<\/p>\n
Positive convergence of Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama? Gus
\nDur's supporters have decreed that it would be religiously
\npermissible, halal, to spill the blood of Amien and his friends,
\nand that if they died in the process, they would go to heaven.<\/p>\n
The upholding of the supremacy of the law, which applies also
\nto Soeharto? Let's not waste words on assessing this particular
\none.<\/p>\n
As for friendliness between Amien and Gus Dur, anyone can see
\nthat there is never any love lost between the two leaders of the
\ntwo largest Islamic organizations -- whose mandates are to spread
\nthe word of Islam, which is peace on earth.<\/p>\n
Amien has reportedly repented for his support of Gus Dur's
\npresidency, and asked Allah's forgiveness for his mistakes when
\nhe performed the umrah last year. Gus Dur, however, remains as
\nunrepentant as ever but that may be because he did not see any
\nneed to do so. As he cleverly expressed, \"I did not ask to be
\nmade President.\"<\/p>\n
Those who have claimed to have been disillusioned by Gus Dur
\nwould be better advised to remember that the man has always been
\none of the most controversial people ever, that he has always
\nbeen erratic, that he is full of idiosyncrasy that has not only
\nbeen tolerated by his supporters but has actually been taken as
\nproof of his superiority as the representative of Allah
\n(waliyyulah) on earth.<\/p>\n
And he is the leader of an organization that has baffled those
\nscholars -- both domestic and foreign -- because of the paradoxes
\nthat have enriched it throughout its existence.<\/p>\n
This is an organization whose members value independence
\nhighly, are wary of external challenges, but seem to accept the
\ndecisions of their religious teachers, the kyai, unquestioningly
\nto the point of blind loyalty. Established in 1926, NU forswore
\npolitics more than a decade ago, and pledged to return to being a
\nreligious and social movement, but then abandoned these 1926
\nprinciples and engaged in political ploys which could have come
\nout of a political guru's strategy book.<\/p>\n
Those who observed the 1994 congress of NU in Cipasung, West
\nJava, will remember how members dressed down Gus Dur for
\negotistical leadership but then fought the hardest to have him
\nre-elected chairman. When their candidate appeared to be on the
\nbrink of losing to underdog Abu Hasan, these same ulemas prayed
\nfervently, hands reaching upward for divine help.<\/p>\n
Then, in private, these very same ulemas made Gus Dur the butt
\nof their jokes. It is also these ulemas who, upon hearing about
\nGus Dur's victory, chanted the shalawat Badar, praises of Prophet
\nMuhammad and Islam's past heroes, as a symbol of their respect
\nfor the man. Given his poor eyesight, Gus Dur entered the hall
\nwith his hands reaching out in front of him, half carried and
\nhalf-guided by hands into his supporters' embrace, to take up
\nanother term of leadership.<\/p>\n
Of course, the ulemas kissed Gus Dur's hands as a pledge of
\nallegiance. Never mind his affection for one big plan of opening
\nties with Israel, of his then alleged acceptance of \"hot money\"
\nfrom national gambling. They dismissed those concerns as small
\nbecause they were loyal to him. As they are now.<\/p>\n
If Gus Dur defies any attempts at explaining him years ago,
\nwhy then do people now claim to be disillusioned?<\/p>\n
The writer is a journalist at The Jakarta Post.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/clear-programs-are-the-way-of-democracy-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }