Islamic student groups must be alert<\/p>\n
By Muhammad Qodari<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): An article I wrote on Islamic groups and the
\nstudent movement published on Feb. 15 in this newspaper, has
\nprompted a response from a friend of mine, Andi Rahmat, chairman
\nof the Indonesian Muslim Students Action Front (KAMMI).<\/p>\n
In his article on Feb. 20, Rahmat grasped the most important
\npoint; that there is a danger that New Order remnants, in
\npursuing their own goals, may be manipulating Islamic sentiment
\namong students in opposition to President Abdurrahman Wahid, or
\nGus Dur.<\/p>\n
Rahmat, however, has also shown some misunderstanding. I never
\nintended to simplify matters to say that the chief motive behind
\nthe movement in opposition to Gus Dur is the Muslim student
\ngroups' dislike for Gus Dur and for Nahdlatul Ulama.<\/p>\n
I only wanted to disclose that the discourse among the
\nstudents movement in opposition to Gus Dur is not as simple or as
\nneutral as their rhetoric of the six-point reform vision.<\/p>\n
The students' movement is now dominated by a network
\naffiliated with KAMMI, a students' organization with great
\nconcerns on the Islamic political agenda. This domination has
\nfound expression at the level of discourse and also in the number
\nof its active participants in rallies; this has influenced, to a
\nconsiderable degree, public opinion particularly on the issue of
\nwhether Gus Dur will survive.<\/p>\n
Nowadays, when transparency is regarded a prerequisite for
\ndemocracy, broad segments of the community must enjoy the right
\nto know as much as possible about political figureheads and their
\nrespective agendas.<\/p>\n
They must be informed that, unlike the multireligious, multi-
\nideological and multiorganizational 1998 students' movement, the
\nstudents' movement of 2001 is dominated by one based on Islamic
\nideology.<\/p>\n
This ideological basis is important to take into account not
\nonly because Indonesia is a multireligious, multiethnic and
\nmulticultural state, but also because it is associated with the
\nessence of democracy, which, as Andi Rahmat has put it, is the
\nagenda of today's Islamic students' groups.<\/p>\n
KAMMI and its network now control a number of formal students'
\norganizations across Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Rahmat may be right when saying that KAMMI and its network
\nopposed former presidents Soeharto and B.J. Habibie -- though
\ncompared to other students' action fronts KAMMI tended to be more
\npassive.<\/p>\n
He may also be right in saying that the above network silently
\nboycotted the 1992 and 1997 elections as a manifestation of their
\ndisagreement with the New Order.<\/p>\n
However it is obvious that KAMMI and its network were not, in
\ntheir original format, students' groups taking up a frontline
\nposition in resisting Soeharto and the New Order regime.<\/p>\n
If only the paradigm of democratization prevailing among
\nMuslim students' movement had been as solid as Rahmat had put it,
\ntheir firm stance towards Soeharto would have surfaced much
\nearlier.<\/p>\n
A survey conducted by a team from the Indonesian Institute of
\nSciences on the 1998 students' movement discloses that in the
\nlate 1980s until shortly before Soeharto's fall in 1998, KAMMI
\nand its networks were not on the list of student groups openly
\nopposing Soeharto.<\/p>\n
During my student years, elements associated with KAMMI only
\nresponded to matters with specific Islamic interests like the
\nnational lottery or issues of Bosnia and Chechnya.<\/p>\n
The reason is crystal clear: KAMMI avoided direct
\nconfrontation with Soeharto. KAMMI itself was not officially
\nestablished until April 10, 1998, only shortly before the wave of
\nstudent action peaked.<\/p>\n
Rahmat stated that \"the students' message portrays the
\noriginal outlook of Muslim students regarding democratization,
\nand not a mask to cover their fundamentalist face, as some have
\naccused\". This statement should not stop at mere rhetoric.<\/p>\n
KAMMI activists are known to have, either secretly or openly,
\ncampaigned that their candidates for student bodies were purely
\nIslamic, while rival candidates, although also Muslims, were
\nsecular or non-practitioners.<\/p>\n
Instructions were issued prohibiting followers to elect a non-
\nIslamic leader. This practice went on for years, at least at the
\nUniversity of Indonesia.<\/p>\n
This practice is against the principle of democracy, which
\nbrings into question their performance in the political arena
\noutside campus.<\/p>\n
Rahmat mentioned Islam and Democracy, a book by John L.
\nEsposito and John O. Voll. It is not clear which argument Rahmat
\nwished to defend by quoting from a book on Islamic discourse and
\npractices of democracy in Iran, the Sudan, Pakistan, Malaysia,
\nAlgiers and Egypt.<\/p>\n
The writers reached the following conclusion,\"Both the
\ngovernment and sociopolitical movements in these countries have
\noften made use of religious symbols and jargons in their own
\ninterest; they have cashed in on, abused, applied and manipulated
\nreligion and politics.\"<\/p>\n
I do not hate KAMMI and its network. I actually admire the
\nactivists who are known to be honest and devout. However, any
\ngroup with an agenda of religious interest and sentiment will
\nalways be vulnerable to the political manipulation of religion by
\nsuch groups as the remnants of the New Order.<\/p>\n
The study by Esposito and Voll has only confirmed these fears.<\/p>\n
The writer works with the Institute for Studies on the Free-
\nflow of Information, Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/islamic-student-groups-must-be-alert-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}