A comparison of antimilitary sentiment and edict banning women

Thomas Hidya Tjaya Jakarta

There has been much talk about who will win the presidential election and at least two major issues have been raised regarding the suitability of the candidates.

The first is antimilitarism. A large number of people and several organizations have raised concerns over candidates with military backgrounds, and urged voters not to elect them. The candidates are Wiranto from the Golkar Party and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono from the Democratic Party.

The second issue relates to female candidates. Several clerics in Pasuruan, East Java, have issued an edict (fatwa) banning women from serving as president. Since there is only one woman candidate in this election, namely, Megawati Soekarnoputeri, everybody knows that she is the only target of the pronouncement.

We are left wondering, are the two issues essentially the same?

It is true, first of all, that in the end the voters have the final say. The candidates, and their campaign teams, put in their best efforts to woo voters -- even by using morally ambiguous means such as money politics. The interest of voters may or may not be aroused by the issues of antimilitarism or gender.

Indeed, at first glance, the two issues seem to be on the same level -- and one that can be discussed through rational argumentation. We can ask, for instance, whether it makes sense to reject candidates with military backgrounds, or whether their military-style leadership would manifest in their leadership of the country. Not to mention the shadows of alleged crimes or power abuse that hang over them.

Likewise, we can ask whether it makes sense to reject a woman candidate for president, or, on what rationale the edict was issued. Some people have said that the edict is discriminatory against women. They also suggest that the edict is politically motivated to the advantage of the male candidates.

The two issues, however, differ substantially in the sources from which they have emerged. Most morally conscious people have not forgotten the negative impacts of the military's place in national politics under Soeharto. Thus, it is no surprise that many have campaigned against candidates with military backgrounds.

No fatwa has been issued against those candidates running for president. Thus, the issue of antimilitarism springs forth from the lessons of the past, as advocated by those Indonesians who haven't experienced historical amnesia.

The banning of women presidential candidates comes from some clerics and essentially constitutes a fatwa. The pronouncement is considered religious for two reasons: First, because it is supported by religious reasons, and second, because it comes from religious leaders.

Here, religion and politics merge: Religion is generally considered sacred and its teachings, from a divine source. Even though a fatwa is not considered part of divine revelation, it does concern religious matters that are important to believers.

Various explanations have been offered with regard to the status of the edict. Mohamad Guntur Romli and H Abu Yasid have perceived a "political aroma" in the edict (Kompas, June 8). Ahmad Najib Burhani in The Jakarta Post (June 9) opines that the edict is not legally binding, as people can choose the fatwa that suits them best.

The latter explanation definitely relieves many Muslims and would help clear their conscience should they vote for Megawati. Not every Muslim in this country is familiar with Islamic law, and particularly the status of the edict in it. Besides, different clerics may offer different interpretations of it.

Nevertheless, there is a much larger issue at stake than simply a religious pronouncement on presidential candidates, namely, that of the use of religion in politics. Many people suspect that the edict is not simply about abiding by a particular religious teaching, but rather about political power.

We have heard people ask why this issue comes up only now, and not during Megawati's term. Thus, the allegation that the religious edict is politically motivated is not unwarranted.

If this is true, then we should regret the issuance of such an edict. The pronouncement will eventually be detrimental both to the religious leaders and to the religion itself. First of all, religion is a serious matter, and people generally have high expectations that religious leaders will show them how to live their lives.

Instead of using religion and its values to enhance the quality of life in society, those involved in the issuance of the edict seem to have used it for their own limited advantage. By making such a pronouncement, these religious leaders have put their own credibility at risk.

Moreover, the use of religion to accomplish one's own personal and limited political agenda will only denigrate religion itself. Non-believers may get another reason to push religion away from their lives by showing how hypocritical religious people can be. For them, it is much better not to embrace any religion, and yet have high morality, rather than to abuse it and become a hypocrite. Here, we see the danger of abusing religion for political purposes.

Thus, more than the antimilitary issue, a religious edict that bans women from becoming president has ramifications of its own. Religious leaders, therefore, should be watchful of their roles in politics and avoid using religion as an instrument for their own personal agenda.

The writer is a lecturer at Driyarkara School of Philosophy in Jakarta and a graduate of Fordham University, New York.