Disclosing NU's vulnerabilities<\/p>\n
Muhamad Rifai, Contributor, Yogyakarta<\/p>\n
\"Bodohnya NU\" apa \"NU Dibodohi?\"<\/p>\n
Jejak Langkah NU Era Reformasi: Menguji Khittah Meneropong<\/p>\n
Paradigma Politik<\/p>\n
(\"Folly of NU\" or \"Has NU been Fooled\"?<\/p>\n
Traces of NU in Reform Era: Putting Khittah to a Test -
\nScrutinizing Political Paradigms)<\/p>\n
By Bahrul Ulum<\/p>\n
Ar-Ruzz Press & PW IPNU Central Java<\/p>\n
September 2002<\/p>\n
254 pp<\/p>\n
This book is the latest of those analyzing Nahdlatul Ulama (NU)
\nas an opportunist movement that always loses in the political
\ndomain. Is it true that if NU is not foolish that it will be
\nfooled by others?<\/p>\n
NU was set up in 1926 by salaf ulema as a social and religious
\nmovement to counter the modernists in terms of religious
\ninterpretation. It was not only active in setting up pesantren
\n(Islamic boarding schools) but also raised social and political
\nawareness during the latter decades of Dutch governance. Evidence
\nof its holy war resolution was its decision to help set up MIAI
\nand Masyumi while its support for Sukarno as president was its
\nhistorical proof.<\/p>\n
Up to that period, few intellectuals would have called NU
\nfoolish and useless. When Indonesia became independent in 1945
\nand later held its first general election, NU joined Masyumi but
\nlost to Muhammadiyah in earning the religious affairs minister
\nposition. It only earned a place in the advisory council without
\nany practical role. That's why NU set up its own party and
\ncontested the 1955 general election.<\/p>\n
Starting at that point, observers and intellectuals no longer
\nsaw NU as a social and religious organization due to its
\ninvolvement in political practice.<\/p>\n
In the New Order era under Soeharto, NU took part in the 1972
\nelection and was second only to Golkar. When there was a fusion
\nof political parties in 1973, it became an element in the United
\nDevelopment Party (PPP). In this period, NU was known as the
\ngovernment's opposition. It rejected the government's plan to
\nallot 50 percent of the seats in the House of Representatives for
\nthe military. Instead, NU suggested the allocation of 5 percent
\nonly.<\/p>\n
In its 27th national conference in Situbondo, East Java, in
\n1984, NU declared its return to its khittah (origins) as a social
\nand religious organization without any involvement in political
\npractices. As a consequence, it left PPP and accepted Pancasila
\nas the sole principle. It also allowed its members to vote for
\nany party.<\/p>\n
From this time up to the fall of Soeharto, NU, led by K.H.
\nSahal Mahfuds and Abdurrahman \"Gus Dur\" Wahid, began to develop a
\nhealthy intellectual discourse on democracy and the reinforcement
\nof civil society. It sought to empower the people to eradicate
\nilliteracy and also help them realize their rights as citizens.<\/p>\n
In this period, NU was involved in cultural areas. The young
\ngeneration of NU emerged. They not only had orthodox religious
\nknowledge from their pesantren education but are also familiar
\nwith modernist, neo-modernist and post-modernist ideas.<\/p>\n
After the reform era kicked off, following the onset of the
\nmulti-dimensional crisis and the fall of Soeharto, B.J. Habibie
\nbecame president. In a flash, political euphoria hit the entire
\ncountry: Freedom to express opinions and criticisms. Here, NU,
\nwhich from the beginning of its history had its own political
\nculture, was also dragged into this euphoria and set up the
\nNational Awakening Party (PKB) on July 23, 1998.<\/p>\n
In his book, Ulum observes that during the reform era, NU's
\nvision shifted to more of an involvement in politics. Critically,
\nUlum tested how well the flexibility or consistency of NU's
\nkhittah was maintained by its leaders. Or, perhaps, it was used
\nfor power or personal interest purposes through changeable
\nsituations.<\/p>\n
In his evaluation, NU in the reform era has violated its own
\nkhittah when the central executive board of NU instructed that
\nall NU members should vote for PKB.<\/p>\n
Ulum criticizes NU for spending so much energy only on
\npolitical matters and neglecting other things. Further, he
\nbitterly lashes out and says their flexibility in the
\ninterpretation of khittah, relative to the situation and the
\ncondition, backfired on them and the NU always loses or looks
\nfoolish.<\/p>\n
It is regrettable, though, that a supposed intellectual such
\nas Ulum is unable to process data broadly and comprehensively. It
\nseems he is still burdened with the hypothesis and concepts
\nprevailing among some NU figures, intellectuals, bureaucrats,
\npoliticians or those which can be found in mass media opinions.<\/p>\n
Ulum should have involved himself in the processing of his own
\nresearch. Is it true, as he claims, that for NU grassroots were
\nonly politically active when Gus Dur became president? At least,
\nUlum can study the activities set up by the NU's young generation
\nin this period. This would have been helpful in his political
\nconclusions. Otherwise, he is assessing everything using the
\nelection yardstick of losing or winning.<\/p>\n
In fact, using a parallel historical approach, Ulum could have
\nobserved the flexibility of the interpretation of khittah to find
\nout what sociological and political conditions have served as the
\nbackground so that there is always a shift from politics to
\nkhittah and then to politics again in a circle.<\/p>\n
NU joined GAPI and Masyumi in the context of resisting the
\nDutch leadership. When it was politically impossible to wage
\nresistance, NU moved to the cultural line. Why is it that when
\nGus Dur was forced to step down it was considered a loss and he
\nhimself was considered too foolish for political matters and gave
\nrise to a disgusting image?<\/p>\n
Don't we see that in its \"craziness\", despite the labeling of
\nopportunism, traditionalism, conservatism, foolishness and
\nresistance, NU has consistently fought against injustice for the
\nsake of humanity. It is completely wrongheaded to consider a
\nsocial struggle in terms of short-term winning and losing of
\nelections or from the labeling of stupidity. Here Ulum must learn
\nto be a truly independent intellectual and must now allow himself
\nto be carried away by the major currents of opinions to avoid
\namateurism.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/disclosing-nus-vulnerabilities-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}