High time now for more substantive politics<\/p>\n
Muhamad Ali, Lecturer, State Islamic University,
\nSharif Hidayatullah, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Elections are coming soon, both in the U.S. and in Indonesia.
\nThe relationship between religion and politics remains a crucial
\nissue in both countries. In the last U.S. election, the
\npoliticians and the public debated over whether or not political
\nparties should be allowed to use religious rhetoric. Many people
\nsaid George W. Bush purposely used religious idioms. This year,
\nseveral other crucial issues with religious implications will be
\ndiscussed, most notably gay (same-sex, ed.) marriage.<\/p>\n
According to a survey in June-July 2003, 62 percent of the
\nU.S. citizens agreed with Bush on his open expression of his
\nreligious beliefs and 58 percent believed that Bush relied on
\nreligion in decision-making. However, religious references in
\nspeeches and political decision-making have made U.S. citizens
\nuncomfortable. Bush has also been regarded as endangering
\nAmerican secularism. Religion should not enter the realm of
\npolitics.<\/p>\n
The result of the U.S. survey above is similar to that of
\nIndonesia Survey Institute (LSI) that was conducted in August
\n2003. Of 2,240 respondents, categorized into "pious" Muslims and
\n"secular" Muslims, 51 percent of "pious" Muslim voters will chose
\n"nationalist" political parties, while 21.4 percent of them will
\nchoose "Islamic" parties. The results can be examined critically
\nfrom different points of view, but it seems that more and more
\nvoters have become less concerned with religion in choosing
\npolitical parties. It is more likely that the majority will still
\nchoose democratic, pluralistic parties, rather than religion-
\nbased parties.<\/p>\n
Formally, the U.S. maintains a liberal democracy. Liberal
\ndemocracy is a governance philosophy and model that emphasizes
\nindividual rights and liberty, equality, mutual respect and
\ntolerance. Liberal democracy combines individual liberty with
\nmajority practices through representative governance.<\/p>\n
At present, the percent of non-Christians in the U.S. is
\nincreasing. Of 281 million U.S. citizens, 5.5 million are
\nMuslims, 1.9 million are Buddhists, and 1.3 are Hindu. Millions
\nof others are committed to other religions and faiths,
\nagnosticism or atheism. This diversity of U.S. citizens has
\nbecome an increasingly important context of the debate over
\nreligion and politics.<\/p>\n
The role of religion has been as controversial in the U.S. as
\nin other countries. During the last general election campaign, a
\nheated debate over religious liberties and religious rights of
\nminorities occurred, especially regarding the U.S. Supreme Court
\nadjudication on Oregon versus Smith case.<\/p>\n
That debate indicates that even in a secular country like the
\nU.S., tension prevails where religion and politics mix.<\/p>\n
Such debate in the U.S. centers on whether religion spoils or,
\non the contrary, fosters liberal democracy. The answer to such a
\nquestion depends on the historical context. There were two main
\nviewpoints, as Mary C. Segers (2003) wrote. One group considers
\nreligion as a source of political damage. The rivalry amongst
\nvarious churches could bring about sectarian disputes. Religion
\nalso threatens the political discussion process since religious
\nactivities tend to be intolerant and have no respect for
\nfundamental rights of various religious and non-religious
\nadherents.<\/p>\n
According to these minimalists, religion undermines
\nfundamental rights of democratic citizenship through its call for
\ndivine authority. Moreover, politics inherently jeopardizes
\nreligion. The church's involvement in politics presents the
\ndanger of political fetishism or legitimizing the given political
\nstructures in religious idioms. According to this group,
\ntherefore, the state must not develop religious expression in
\npolitics.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, apologists argue that not only religion
\ncoexists with democracy, it could foster democratic rule.
\nReligion enhances the U.S.' democracy in three ways. First,
\nreligion has positive effects on the broadening of political
\nrepresentation -- something that democrats have to admit and
\nrespect. Second, religion enhances democratic citizenship by
\neducating citizens on political and civic skills that are
\nindispensable for effective participation. Third, religion
\ndisseminates moral values that democracy needs. Churches,
\nmosques, synagogues and temples may serve as hubs where such
\nvalues are disseminated, and function as a barricade for social
\nand\/or political tyranny.<\/p>\n
The two strands above provide two different positions. The
\nreality is more complicated than just those two. In fact, not all
\nAmericans agree that the separation of church and state should
\nmean a total divorce between religion and politics. Separating
\ngovernment agencies from religious institutions should not
\nnecessarily mean that citizens are prohibited from using their
\nmoral beliefs in public policy debates. For many, religious and
\npolitical relations in the U.S. are not necessarily a black and
\nwhite issue.<\/p>\n
What about Indonesia? Religion in politics is also a subject
\nof debate, although the prevailing background and issues are
\noften different from those in other countries. The two groups of
\nminimalists and apologists as in the U.S. can also be found in
\nIndonesia. The debate has often been rhetorical, symbolist or
\ndestructive rather than substantive and constructive. Religion
\nserves as merely a cover and an attraction to bring in masses of
\nsupporters, while neglecting such values as human rights,
\ndemocracy, peace, transparency and justice.<\/p>\n
Some political parties still use religious symbols, names,
\nidioms and texts in a somewhat artificial manner, as if those
\nsymbols only support the given political position. Religious
\nabsolutism is emphasized so much that only a divine concept
\naccording one's party is the truest, while other parties'
\nreligious concepts are said to be wrong.<\/p>\n
Of 24 political parties, the names of political parties refer
\nto inclusive and substantive values such as patriotism,
\nnationalism, justice, welfare and unity. But problems often arise
\nwhen campaigning begins, when political debate is ratcheted up to
\na high level of intensity. Experiences from previous campaigns
\nshowed how the religious card is played in one way or another to
\nattract the masses from a certain religion or religious
\norganization, and often manipulated to discredit other political
\nparties.<\/p>\n
Religious rhetoric is believed to be effective in attracting
\nthe masses, not only in Indonesia but also in the U.S., and it is
\nlikely that political actors in both countries will use it.
\nNonetheless, the risk is all the same: If a sectarian,
\nsuperficial, hypocrite and empty politics become the major
\nconcern, then the concrete, inclusive programs become neglected,
\nwhereas corruption, backwardness, violence, ignorance and other
\nhuman and social problems become the lowest priority.<\/p>\n
The time is coming for politicians to promote more substantive
\npolitics. That means politics that emphasize universal values,
\ntolerance and practical programs to benefit as many groups as
\npossible. Substantive politics also means politics without dirty
\nmoney politics, without corruption and without violence.<\/p>\n
With substantive politics, substantive values such as
\nequality, justice, welfare, clean living, security, social
\nsolidarity and the like are emphasized, and concrete programs for
\nsociety at large are promoted. With substantive politics,
\npolitical competition will be healthier, more productive and
\nbetter able to serve the greatest number in society.<\/p>\n
This article first appeared online at www.gusdur.net<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/high-time-now-for-more-substantive-politics-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }