Mutual trust key to democracy<\/p>\n
By Aleksius Jemadu<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): People need maturity and humbleness to accept
\nthe bitter reality of being a loser in any kind of competition
\nwith fellow humans. In a sense, the general election was a form
\nof social marketing in which political parties and politicians
\ntried to persuade the electorate to \"buy\" their ideas and
\nprograms. Campaign activities, including television ads, were
\ndesigned to attract people's attention and win their votes.<\/p>\n
If political parties or groups failed to reach their vote
\ntargets, there were two possible reasons. First, they were too
\nambitious or self-confident. There was a big gap between their
\nexpectations and the capacity to attain their goals. Second,
\npeople were simply not interested in their ideas or slogans and
\ntherefore decided to join other political parties which were more
\nattractive. Politicians can never blame the electorate for not
\nsupporting them in elections. If they are politically mature,
\nthey can only blame themselves and then make improvements to
\nperform better next time.<\/p>\n
Although many political analysts predicted the victory of the
\nIndonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), people
\nwonder why such a victory coincided with a poor performance by
\nIslamic parties.<\/p>\n
Is there any causal relationship between the two phenomena?<\/p>\n
It should be noted that just one day before the elections, the
\nIndonesian Council of Ulemas (MUI) issued a fatwa (religious
\nverdict) urging Indonesian Muslims to choose Islamic parties. The
\nfatwa was bolstered by a nationwide television advertisement with
\nthe same message. As it turned out, the performance of
\npluralistic and secularist parties such as PDI Perjuangan, the
\nNational Awakening Party (PKB) and the National Mandate Party
\n(PAN) remained unharmed and was even better than what many people
\nexpected.<\/p>\n
Whatever the reason behind the victory of PDI Perjuangan, it
\nis undeniable that the majority of its voters are also Muslims.
\nChristians and other non-Muslims are just a minority group in
\nthis party. Take, for instance, the election outcome in West
\nJava. Millions of PDI Perjuangan supporters in this province are
\nMuslims. People from other religions here number perhaps less
\nthan 1 percent. But let us not forget that for members of such a
\ncosmopolitan and nationalist party, religious affiliation does
\nnot really matter.<\/p>\n
Even if the number of non-Muslim PDI Perjuangan legislative
\ncandidates is considerable, it would be unwise for the party to
\nneglect the aspirations and interests of the Muslim population.
\nLeaders of the party do not need to be told or dictated by other
\npeople to take into account the interests of the majority of the
\npeople. Then again, establishing a sharp dichotomy between
\nMuslims and non-Muslims in this era of reform could become a
\nserious hindrance, not only for national unity but also for
\ndemocracy itself. Indonesians need to have a common ideological
\nplatform on which a strong and modern nation-state can be based.<\/p>\n
It is true that due to the diversity of the ideological
\norientations of the political parties these elections are going
\nto create new divisions in our society, along religious, race and
\nethnicity lines. Unfortunately, competition among political
\nparties during the campaign period tended to strengthen such
\ndivisive forces. The question is: can the process of
\ndemocratization occur at the same time as the development of
\nthese growing divisive forces? Can Indonesia progress to an
\negalitarian civil society if some social groups are deeply
\nembedded in attitudes of self-righteousness?<\/p>\n
During the period of the New Order government, tension among
\nreligious groups, especially between Muslims and Christians, was
\nencouraged by the fact that the government used the friction to
\nperpetuate its domination. For instance, in the 1970s and 1980s
\nthe government tended to favor Christians at the expense of
\nMuslims. Christians held key positions in the Cabinet. Many
\ngovernment policies were insensitive to Islamic beliefs.<\/p>\n
In the 1990s, Soeharto's New Order changed its mind. It began
\nto embrace Islamic groups. But again, the aim was to strengthen
\nits own position. Thus, it never had an everlasting honeymoon
\nwith any religious group, because favors were considered from
\none-sided political calculations. The implication of this \"divide
\nand rule\" policy was tremendous. Indonesians were led to think
\nand behave in terms of religious suspicion and hatred.<\/p>\n
Curiously enough, at the grassroots level the existing pattern
\nof voting behavior goes against religious lines of division. Had
\nthe pattern of voting behavior been based on religious divisions,
\na secularist PDI Perjuangan would not have gained such a leading
\nposition in the vote tally. This is indeed impressive social
\ncapital for the future of a civil society and a democratic state.
\nThere is no social or political group which is too small to be
\nneglected in Indonesian politics, let alone ignoring or
\nalienating the big groups. Big and small groups should cooperate
\nand strengthen each other to build a just and prosperous
\nIndonesia.<\/p>\n
Religious sentiments release a huge amount of energy in modern
\npolitics. They can be used or mobilized for positive as well as
\nnegative purposes. Let our moral conscience guide us to choose
\nthe positive ones. Such choices would surely benefit us all as a
\nnation.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer in the Department of International
\nRelations at the Catholic University of Parahyangan Bandung.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/mutual-trust-key-to-democracy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}