Democracy not the cure-all for what ails society: Brennan<\/p>\n
Father Frank Brennan SJ AO is director of Uniya, a social
\njustice research and action center based in Sydney, Australia,
\nwhich focuses on justice for marginalized groups as well as for
\nrefugee rights, the bill of rights and human rights in Australia
\nand East Asia.<\/p>\n
A noted Australian lawyer as well as a Jesuit priest, Brennan
\nvisited Indonesia recently at the invitation of the Australian
\nStudies Center, University of Indonesia. He was a speaker at a
\nconference, jointly organized by the center and the Australia
\nIndonesia Institute, in Jakarta on Jan. 28.<\/p>\n
He was on a panel with noted Muslim intellectual Nurcholish
\nMadjid, the rector of Paramadina University. The following is an
\nexcerpt from an interview with Brennan which covered a wide range
\nof issues, including human rights, interfaith relations, East
\nTimor as well as the conflict in Maluku.<\/p>\n
Question: Indonesia has been ravaged by a prolonged series of
\nriots and conflicts, including religious ones. How do you view
\nthese disturbances?<\/p>\n
Answer: In a society as complex as Indonesia, wherever you
\nhave groups who identify themselves differently and identify each
\nother differently, then if there are causes which could be
\ncausing tension, inevitably there will be an element of that
\ntension which is then identified with the differences, which
\nmight be religious or ethnic as well.<\/p>\n
In this case, what you need is a way of ensuring that the
\ninterests and the world view and the aspirations of the different
\ngroups have been accommodated.<\/p>\n
For a long time there was the idea that the dwifungsi
\n(sociopolitical role) of the military would help to provide a
\nwall of protection between different groups, and that sometimes
\nminority groups would see themselves being protected from the
\nmajority by the intervention of the military.<\/p>\n
But obviously military and police activity is not the best way
\nto be able to effect social reconciliation.<\/p>\n
What's going on in Indonesia now is that you are moving toward
\na new democracy where there is a concern for the rule of law, or
\nfor insurance that the rights and the interests and the
\naspirations of the different groups are given equal protection.<\/p>\n
The riots and the clashes attest that we don't have that as
\nyet.<\/p>\n
You are just moving toward that, and so you have to be depend
\nvery strongly on the charismatic reputation and the charismatic
\npower of your President Gus Dur (Abdurrahman Wahid), who when it
\ncomes to religious matters people can say, here is a man who as
\nleader has a proven record of being inclusive and of being
\nequally respectful of the rights of different groups, including,
\nfor example, the Christian minority.<\/p>\n
You said the military \"dual function\" in a way protects the
\nminority.<\/p>\n
It does, but I mean, for example, I have met some Catholics in
\nIndonesia, particularly some Chinese-Indonesian businesspeople,
\nwho would say that when you have a strong military, then that
\nprovides the guarantee that even the minority can be engaged
\nfreely in their business enterprises and their property can be
\nprotected.<\/p>\n
While conceding that, I would say that the dwifungsi of the
\nmilitary is a poor second option, offered against ultimately
\ndeveloping the proper operation of the rule of law in a
\ndemocracy.<\/p>\n
You mean in the absence of the rule of law the military
\nwas ...<\/p>\n
From what I have heard from people in Indonesia, one of the
\nbenefits of the New Order was very rapid economic development.
\nAnd maybe that economic development could not have occurred so
\nrapidly if there had been a full-blown democracy with the
\nprotection of the rule of law.<\/p>\n
But there comes a stage in the development of society, where
\nthere has been rapid economic development and then also some
\nincreasing education of the society generally, where there will
\nbe demands for proper protection of the liberty of everyone.<\/p>\n
And there also will be the demand for some equitable
\ndistribution of the benefits of that economic development. Now I
\nthink what happened in Indonesia at one and the same time was,
\nparticularly with the currency crisis, was heightened concern
\nthat the benefits of economic development were being unfairly and
\nat times corruptly distributed. But, secondly, that there was
\nvery inadequate protection of the liberties of persons,
\nparticularly from minority groups.<\/p>\n
How would you describe Indonesia in this transition period?<\/p>\n
As a foreigner and a Christian, I can say without causing
\noffense that Indonesia does not yet have a fully developed
\ndemocracy with the rule of law, with a fully independent
\njudiciary which is able to give full protection to all groups,
\nincluding unpopular minorities.<\/p>\n
But that is to be expected because with the level of economic
\ndevelopment for a country with 200 million people, that
\n(democracy) can only come very slowly.<\/p>\n
Nurcholish Madjid said at the conference that Indonesia's
\ndemocracy is still only a year old.<\/p>\n
I also think free discussion here is only one year old. When I
\nwas here last year doing the language course in Yogyakarta, I
\nremember speaking with one of my students and she said to me that
\nAustralia is a federation ...<\/p>\n
Now she thought federation was a bad thing because she
\nidentified it with the Dutch period. But for me as a
\nconstitutional lawyer, I know that the advantage of a federation
\nis that it gives the possibility for different groups in
\ndifferent areas to be more self-governing while being part of a
\nunited nation. That is the whole theory of the federation.<\/p>\n
In your conference paper, you said the greatest religious
\nchallenge will be the relationship between Muslims and
\nChristians, something that Indonesia is facing right now.<\/p>\n
One of the things that we saw at the conference was that there
\nwas respectful complementary dialog between myself as an
\nAustralian Christian and Prof. Madjid as an Indonesian Muslim.<\/p>\n
And as I said, yes, I think if he and I had come together 50
\nyears ago, then each of us would have doubted the possibility
\nthat the other one could be saved, and we would have been very
\nrighteous about our own salvation.<\/p>\n
But coming together today, what we do in terms of our
\nreligious dialog is that we are very happy to conceive that the
\nother person can be saved.<\/p>\n
I as a Christian can say in good faith to the person who is
\nMuslim that, of course, we believe in God and we believe in the
\nsame God, and so I think what is essential for this sort of
\ndialog is a humility for each of us before God and before each
\nother.<\/p>\n
And as Indonesia is moving toward the adoption of many of the
\ninternational human rights instruments, there will be insights
\nwhich people who are Muslims and Indonesians can bring those
\ninstruments which would be different from the insights that I
\nhave as a Westerner and as a Christian. But the insights can be
\nequally valid.<\/p>\n
But there are Muslim hard-liners who detest Madjid.<\/p>\n
Yes, and I am sure that those Muslims who detest him would
\nhave no time for me and would not want to have this sort of
\ndiscussion.<\/p>\n
But our role as religious people in a public forum in civil
\nsociety is to create a greater space, and a respectful space, for
\nthe dialog between people like myself and Dr. Madjid to occur.<\/p>\n
For other people, who may not have tolerance, may be able see
\nthat this tolerance is something which is not only socially
\nuseful, but it is also true.<\/p>\n
Of course, there are also people who are intolerant Christians
\nwho would say 'we want nothing to do with people who are Muslim'.<\/p>\n
I think we have to admit that the answer is not to be found by
\nsimply comparing those who are the least tolerant in each
\ncommunity, neither in the dialog with those who are the most
\ntolerant.<\/p>\n
In your paper you referred to a conversation with an Eritrean
\nCatholic priest who said \"whenever Christians and Muslims are
\nfound in equal numbers, there is trouble because people who are
\nnot truly Christian nor Muslim are able to exploit religious and
\ntribal differences\".<\/p>\n
In any social situation, if there is some difference which is
\nbeing made worse because of the situation, like poverty or lack
\nof economic opportunity, that difference will come into play.<\/p>\n
For example, if I am a Christian, as a member of a minority
\ngroup in a local community where the majority is Muslim, I would
\nthink that most of the jobs or most of the money is going to the
\nMuslims. Then what starts as a conflict and misunderstanding
\nabout the inequitable distribution of opportunity becomes a
\nconflict about religion.<\/p>\n
And then those within the different groups are able to use the
\nlabel of religion in order to make the conflict worse. What all
\nof us who are religious have to admit is that it is the wrong
\nexploitation of our religious identification because all of the
\ngreat religions teach about the need to respect the other, the
\ndignity of the other and the equal worth of the other.<\/p>\n
An interesting twist concerning religious identification was
\nwhen people said that perhaps one of the reasons Australia was so
\ninvolved or concerned with East Timor was that the people in East
\nTimor were Catholic.<\/p>\n
Over 25 years, many East Timorese moved to Australia. Within
\nthe Catholic community in Australia there were many personal
\nrelationship established between East Timorese and Australians,
\nand I think that definitely contributed in the democratic process
\nin Australians being concerned about the situation in East Timor.<\/p>\n
But it is a mistake for Indonesians to think that because the
\nEast Timorese are Catholics, then the Australian government
\nwanted to commit troops in order to protect these Catholics.<\/p>\n
I don't think the religion of the East Timorese has anything
\nto do with this in that sense. Rather, it is a community of the
\npeople who were close neighbors of Australia. And one very strong
\nemotional factor in Australia has always been that during World
\nWar II the East Timorese had hoped to defend the Australian
\nsoldiers against the Japanese.<\/p>\n
What fueled the spirit of the Australian people about this was
\nexactly the same as the spirit of the Australian people in
\nsupporting Indonesian independence from 1945 to 1950.<\/p>\n
The whole idea in Australia is about what we called the fair
\ngo and sticking up for what we call the underdog, the smaller
\nperson. I think that is a more accurate description of the East
\nTimor situation.<\/p>\n
But Aceh did not get as much attention from Australia.<\/p>\n
The situation in Aceh is very different because that is more
\nas an internal Indonesian affair. Aceh has always been part of
\nthe Republic of Indonesia.<\/p>\n
There may be moves in places like Aceh for greater autonomy or
\ngreater protection of human rights, and I have sympathy with
\nthose things, but they are more internal Indonesian matters.<\/p>\n
East Timor was never just an internal Indonesian matter, but
\nwe had a government in Australia who wanted to treat it as an
\ninternal Indonesian matter. And that's the way it remained until
\npresident Habibie said he would allow the people of East Timor to
\nhave a plebiscite.<\/p>\n
Well, in a sense, that was like breaking open the dam wall and
\nthen allowing the will of the Australian people that has been
\nthere for 20 years to say, right we have to make sure that the
\nvoice of the people of East Timor is heard.<\/p>\n
Could we say that Australians think in a more legalistic way
\nthan Indonesians?<\/p>\n
For some it would be legalistic, but for others it would not
\nbe legalistic. It would instead be the simple proposition that
\nAceh was always part of Indonesia. Many of the East Timorese have
\nalways said that they don't want to be part of Indonesia.<\/p>\n
As the coauthor of the book Finding Common Ground and
\nReconciling Our Differences, which addresses the issue of
\nreconciliation between the Aboriginal people and whites in
\nAustralia, you could perhaps shed some light on a similar issue
\nat our end, say the Maluku conflict.<\/p>\n
I have to say to myself it is obviously very complex; I cannot
\npretend to understand it. I can spell out some principles which I
\nthink should be followed, but the application of those principles
\nhas to be done by the people who are experts, that is those in
\nthe local situation.<\/p>\n
In Australia we have not had that sort of complexity about
\nreligion, but we have had that sort of complexity about our
\nrelationship with our Aboriginal people. And so that is where the
\nissue of reconciliation has been focused in Australia, where for
\n200 years since the arrival of the Europeans there has been a
\nsituation of a radical lack of reconciliation.<\/p>\n
Why?<\/p>\n
In part because there was no recognition either of rights of
\nthe Aboriginal people to their lands and to sustain themselves as
\nself-determining communities, so we have wrestled with it and it
\nhas been very difficult. This is particularly with the Howard
\ngovernment, which has been less sympathetic to the Aborigines
\nthan was the previous Labor government. Then there have been two
\nthings to be done.<\/p>\n
The Aboriginal people have always said reconciliation can be
\nlikened to what we might say in religious terms is \"cheap grace\"
\n-- just trying to paper over the differences and saying forget
\nabout your just claims, let's just pretend everything is now
\nover, let's just pretend we now have a level playing field and we
\nwill forget about the history, forget about your claims.<\/p>\n
The Aboriginal people have said you need three things for
\nreconciliation: respect, recognition and justice. The only thing
\nthat can ever work is if we are at the table. The only outcome
\nwhich is worthwhile is one which follows from a process where we
\nare equal participants. So reconciliation does not work if the
\ngovernment from above says, 'this is the answer, this is what you
\nwill do'.<\/p>\n
What other lessons could be learned from the Aboriginal issue
\nin Australia?<\/p>\n
The lesson to learn is that when people do have legal rights,
\nthen there is far greater capacity for reaching a compromise that
\npeople can own together. And that's what reconciliation is about.<\/p>\n
Some say the Maluku conflict is in a way a legacy from 16th
\ncentury Western colonial powers, when they forcibly converted
\nMuslims to Christianity. What do you think?<\/p>\n
It is not unlike what also used to go on in Europe at that
\ntime, where the people's religion would depend on the religion of
\nthe king.<\/p>\n
What we can say nowadays as we look back was that was very
\nuntheological, that it was ridiculous and no one now would
\nsuggest, for example, that I would be a Christian because John
\nHoward is a Christian.<\/p>\n
Religion is an intensely personal thing, but with this history
\nwhat we have is the name of religion, of religiosity being placed
\nupon individuals and groups who then are engaged in political and
\nmilitary combat. But in a sense the labels of Christian and
\nMuslims were often simply that, labels.<\/p>\n
In the 16th century that was people's world view, but it's
\ndefinitely not our world view now.<\/p>\n
In any historical situation, we can always look back and say
\nwe blame history or the colonial power, but in the end for any
\nhuman society it is about saying that we now have to take the
\nresponsibility of the situation, including our historical
\ninheritance.<\/p>\n
We are taking responsibility for it, we then have to shape it.
\nNow maybe if out of that historical situation there has been an
\nentrenched historical conflict between groups, the net then is
\nwhere the idea of reconciliation becomes critical, where the two
\ngroups come to the table and say it is a complex history, we can
\nnot revisit it.<\/p>\n
But now we must draw the line together so we own our past. We
\ncan come together in the present so that we can shape a future
\ntogether which is better than the past.<\/p>\n
So it has much to do with the locals today as the ones who
\nexperienced the history themselves?<\/p>\n
Reconciliation must always have to come from the local
\nsituation. And for those who are not really in the local
\nsituation, the only thing we can contribute is a more
\ndispassionate step of the principle in the hope that those who
\nare then embroiled in the conflict can embrace those principles
\nmore readily and come to a reconciliation themselves.<\/p>\n
Of course, when you had that sort of conflict the only two
\noutside forces which could be productive are the independent,
\ndispassionate articulation of the principles and, secondly, the
\ncharismatic leadership of someone like Gus Dur who can be a
\ncatalyst. Without that catalyst, there would not be the prospect
\nof bringing the people together.<\/p>\n
In Uniya's leaflet, it is said the most important voices in
\npolitical debates are those who suffer discrimination, injustice
\nand prejudice. How do you make those voices heard? Perhaps in
\nliberal Australia these voices could be easily aired.<\/p>\n
Oh no, it is very difficult. My work at Uniya has something to
\ndo with the rights of the Aboriginal people, but also the rights
\nof refugees and asylum seekers, the boat people that turned up.<\/p>\n
Very strict laws are being made in Australia about boat
\npeople, and there are Australians like myself who are very
\nconcerned about situations of three-year-old and four-year-old
\nchildren who may be from refugee families being held in custody
\nin remote places.<\/p>\n
Some of them may be put there for a long time. We are very
\nconcerned about these people, and we often don't get a good
\nhearing from the major political parties or from the government.
\nThey think we are very soft, romantic liberals, they don't
\nrealize there should be better recognition of the human rights of
\nthese people. They say that we would have boats turning up all
\nthe time in Australia.<\/p>\n
So even in a liberal democratic country, it is still very
\ndifficult to defend the underdog?<\/p>\n
Oh yes, always. And this is why democracy is always hard work,
\nand democracy can never be simply 50 percent plus one wins the
\nday, because if you say 50 percent plus one wins the day, then 49
\npercent can miss out.<\/p>\n
In democracy majoritarianism, 50 percent plus one is very good
\nfor protecting the rights of those who are in the majority, but
\nas well as a democratic election, you also need a strong system
\nof the rule of law, with an independent judiciary and the strong
\nlegal system which can protect the rights of the minority.<\/p>\n
So that the majority has to say that, even if we have strong
\nmajority support for crushing the rights of this minority group
\nbecause we don't like them, 'no you cannot do that'.<\/p>\n
Life in a democracy is about ensuring that even those in the
\nunpopular minorities have their rights as well protected as those
\nwho are in the majority. So that is part of the work of our
\norganization.<\/p>\n
If it is difficult for a liberal country, it will be even more
\ndifficult for an emerging democracy like Indonesia. What did you
\ndo in overcoming these challenges?<\/p>\n
The good thing about democracy is that you have the
\nopportunity to participate and it is through that participation
\nthat you make a difference.<\/p>\n
But in a country like Australia, you still have to accept that
\non many issues money talks, and if you are there trying to
\nrepresent the poor or the marginalized then it can be very
\ndifficult to get a hearing.<\/p>\n
I have always been very strongly of the view that you work on
\ntwo fronts. One is chipping away at the government and the
\ncourts, getting the rights, and the other is educating the public
\nto accept and to understand and to embrace the need for these
\nspecial laws for the benefit of the Aboriginal people.<\/p>\n
The goal you want to achieve is not just like the improvement
\nof the situation of the Aboriginal people. You want improvement
\nof the situation of the Aboriginal people with public acceptance
\nbecause, particularly like the Aboriginal people who live in
\nsmall country towns, they have to live side by side with whites.
\nSo what you want is a situation of good relations as well as the
\nprotection of their rights.<\/p>\n
So democracy is definitely not a panacea?<\/p>\n
I don't want to sound depressing for those who are reforming
\nin Indonesia, but let's make no mistake -- once you have a
\ndemocratic system of government, it does not mean that heaven has
\narrived on earth.<\/p>\n
It just means that you have a better system of trying to work
\nand live together in the community. (hbk\/anr)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/democracy-not-the-cure-all-for-what-ails-society-brennan-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}