Islam and democracy: Malaysian vs Indonesian way<\/p>\n
Endy M. Bayuni, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Because of their predominantly Malay Muslim populations,
\nIndonesia and Malaysia are similar in many respects, but their
\npaths to democracy could not be more dissimilar.
\nWhile there are limitations and shortcomings in the
\ndemocratization of both countries, they are already being touted
\nas two different models as other majority Muslim countries,
\nparticularly those in the Middle East, seek to engage in
\ndemocratic reforms.<\/p>\n
Central to this, of course, is the role that Islam plays in
\npolitics. Indonesia and Malaysia interpret the religion, and
\ntherefore sharia (Islamic law), differently<\/p>\n
Participants in a roundtable discussion on Islam and
\ndemocratization in Asia in Jakarta this week politely refrained
\nfrom passing judgment on which path -- the Indonesian or
\nMalaysian way -- is the more desirable or even the more
\n\"Islamic\".<\/p>\n
The Malay culture of not blowing one's own horn may partly
\nexplain this reluctance, but a more plausible explanation is that
\ndemocracy in these two countries is largely still a work in
\nprogress. Malaysia can claim that its approach has resulted in
\nthe economic well-being of its people, but Indonesia can claim
\nthat its approach is far more inclusive, and thus more
\naccommodating of the interests of its non-Muslim minority
\npopulation.<\/p>\n
But that makes the study of these two countries and the model
\nthey have chosen all the more interesting. The jury is still out,
\nand probably will remain so for many years, about which of the
\ntwo is superior.<\/p>\n
The roundtable, jointly hosted by the International Center for
\nIslam and Pluralism (ICIP) and the Asia Foundation office in
\nJakarta, is the second of its kind to be held in the region,
\nfollowing the one held in September in Manila.<\/p>\n
Besides looking at democracy building in the two Muslim
\nmajority countries, the roundtable looked at developments in
\nMuslim minority countries like the Philippines and Thailand.
\nMuslims in these two countries differ on their leanings toward
\ndemocracy: while they have lived in flourishing democracies for
\nall these years, they continue to face persecution and even feel
\n\"dispossessed\". Some participants from the two
\ncountries were skeptical as to whether democracy is really the
\nanswer to their problems.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, it is now widely accepted in most Muslim
\ncountries that the compatibility of Islam and democracy is not an
\nissue, virtually writing off Samuel Huntington's \"Clash of
\nCivilizations\" theory.<\/p>\n
Minister of Foreign Affairs Hassan Wirajuda, in his keynote
\naddress to the roundtable, said it had now become clear that
\ndemocracy was not an exclusively Western value, but a value that
\nbelonged to all major religions in the world.<\/p>\n
\"The debate on the merits of democracy and its compatibility
\nwith Islam is over,\" Hassan pronounced. \"The challenge in
\nIndonesia today is how to make Islam and all other religions an
\neven more effective force for reform and democratization.\"<\/p>\n
This is also essentially what makes the path toward democracy
\nin Indonesia different from the path taken by Malaysia.<\/p>\n
As one participant in the conference put it, Indonesia has
\ntaken the \"accommodationist\" approach while Malaysia has taken
\nthe \"hegemonistic\" way.<\/p>\n
Islam is the state religion in Malaysia, and sharia is the law
\nprescribed for the Muslim majority. Non-Muslims, therefore, are
\nsubject to different laws.<\/p>\n
In Indonesia, Islam is one of the five religions recognized by
\nthe state. While there had been demands to turn Indonesia into an
\nIslamic state and to impose sharia for Muslims, the debate ended
\n-- for the time being at least -- when the issue was put to a
\nvote during the debate on constitutional amendment in 2002. The
\npro-Islamic and pro-sharia proponents lost the cause through a
\ndemocratic process.<\/p>\n
But while Islam as a political ideology has been widely
\nrejected by the majority Muslims in Indonesia, Islamic teachings
\nand values continue to play a major role in the realm of politics
\nin the country. It is indeed hard to state that Indonesia is a
\nsecular state in the same breath as when we describe secular
\nEuropean states. Indonesia's 1945 Constitution guarantees freedom
\nof religion and obliges the state to protect the rights and
\npractices of devotees.<\/p>\n
In his opening remarks, Douglas Rumage, head of the Asia
\nFoundation office in Indonesia, underlined the role played by
\nmass-based Islamic organizations in the two democratic general
\nelections in the country since 1999 as the chief contribution of
\nIslam to democracy building in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Islam as a political ideology is only one of many ideologies
\nin this budding democracy. The larger share of the votes in the
\n1999 and 2004 elections went to nationalist political parties
\nlike Golkar and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle.<\/p>\n
The different paths taken by Indonesia and Malaysia are
\ndictated by several factors.<\/p>\n
Their colonial history is one: the Malaysian political system
\nhas a British Westminster feel to it, and its legal system is the
\nlegacy of centuries of British rule. Indonesia is a republic
\n(against a kingdom in Malaysia), and its legal system
\nwas established in the Dutch colonial era.<\/p>\n
But more recent history and politics also dictate their
\ndifferent paths.<\/p>\n
Malaysian prime ministers, first Mahathir Muhammad and now
\nAbdullah Badawi, have been veering more and more toward Islamic
\nconservatism, partly to defuse the threat from the Islamic Party
\nof Malaysia (PAS). A Malaysian participant in the roundtable
\nsaid, however, that the debate on the role of Islam and of the
\nsharia in Malaysian democracy had been limited to the political
\nelite, leaving little room for public participation.<\/p>\n
In Indonesia, there is no longer any debate about sharia in
\nthe national legislature, but some regions, Aceh and several
\nregencies, have adopted sharia in response to demands from
\nIslamist parties and ulema at regional level.<\/p>\n
Surin Pitsuwan, former Thai foreign minister, and always an
\neloquent speaker on Islam in Southeast Asia, approached the issue
\nof democracy and Islam from a totally different perspective.<\/p>\n
For him, it is not so much a question of the role Islam can
\nplay in democracy as an understanding of the importance of living
\nin a democracy to be a good Muslim.<\/p>\n
In a closed Islamic society, people must pray five times a day
\nand fast during the holy month of Ramadhan, or face punishment.
\nIn an open society, people have choices, including to ignore
\nthose obligations, but also the option of being a good Muslim.<\/p>\n
\"I fervently believe that to be a good Muslim, you have to be
\nin a democratic system,\" he said.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/islam-and-democracy-malaysian-vs-indonesian-way-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}