Ahead of Muktamar, Must the Secretary-General Resign?
The debate regarding whether Prof Abdul Mu’ti needs to relinquish his position as secretary-general of the Central Board of Muhammadiyah after being entrusted as Indonesia’s Minister of Primary and Secondary Education is interesting to observe. The differences in opinion demonstrate that the critical tradition within the Muhammadiyah organisation is still growing and developing healthily.
Some circles argue that to safeguard the organisation’s independence, Prof Abdul Mu’ti should relinquish his Secretary-General position ahead of or before the Muhammadiyah Muktamar scheduled for next year. This view stems from concerns about a potential conflict of interest between his position as a state official and leader of the nation’s largest socio-religious organisation. Such concerns are certainly worthy of respect as a form of care for the organisation’s future.
Nevertheless, a large organisation cannot draw conclusions based solely on possibilities that have not necessarily occurred. In modern organisational life, it is important to distinguish between a potential conflict of interest and an actual conflict of interest. Not all potentials automatically turn into real problems that disrupt institutional independence. Moreover, to date, there are no facts indicating that Prof Abdul Mu’ti’s position as Minister has reduced Muhammadiyah’s freedom to convey its organisational stance. This is where the importance of viewing the issue proportionally and objectively lies.
Muhammadiyah is not an organisation built on dependence on a single figure. Since its founding over a century ago, the large organisation has grown into a modern movement that relies on systems and institutions. Every strategic organisational decision is not determined by one person, including the Secretary-General. Muhammadiyah has mechanisms for deliberation, plenary meetings, tanwir sessions, and the muktamar, which serve as spaces for collective decision-making. This collective-collegial character is Muhammadiyah’s main bulwark in maintaining its independence.
Therefore, the assumption that a Secretary-General can alter the organisation’s direction according to personal interests is actually somewhat out of line with the long-standing organisational tradition within Muhammadiyah. The strength of Muhammadiyah lies precisely in the maturity of its system. A strong system allows the organisation to continue functioning even when there are changes in figures and leadership.
From this perspective, what must be guarded is not merely someone’s official position, but the effectiveness of the organisation’s oversight and decision-making mechanisms. Furthermore, the presence of Muhammadiyah cadres in government is not something new. In various periods of the nation’s history, many Muhammadiyah figures have carried out public mandates while remaining part of the organisation’s leadership. This tradition arises from the belief that da’wah is not only carried out in mosques, schools, or campuses. Da’wah can also be realised through service in the realm of public policy.
Therefore, when a Muhammadiyah cadre is entrusted as a minister, this can be viewed as a form of the organisation’s contribution to the development of the nation and the state of Indonesia. Of course, this contribution must not diminish Muhammadiyah’s critical capacity. However, maintaining critical capacity does not always have to be manifested through resignation.
The organisation’s critical capacity is born from an intellectual culture, moral courage, and healthy institutional mechanisms. As long as these elements are maintained, Muhammadiyah’s independence will not be easily disturbed by someone’s position in government. Rather, what needs to be avoided is the tendency to judge someone based on prejudice before clear facts are available. Such an attitude has the potential to shift the tradition of tabayyun, which has been part of the Islamic organisational culture.
Muhammadiyah has long experience in maintaining a balance between closeness to and distance from power. The organisation has never turned itself into a political tool of the government. On the other hand, Muhammadiyah also does not position itself as a permanent opposition to the state. The position it has built is that of a critical as well as strategic partner in bringing about welfare for society. This position allows Muhammadiyah to remain independent without being trapped in unproductive confrontational attitudes.
In this context, Abdul Mu’ti’s presence in government can be read as both an opportunity and a trust. An opportunity to strengthen the contribution to national education and a trust to continue safeguarding the organisation’s integrity. This responsibility is certainly not light. However, as long as it is carried out with full accountability, there is no reason to assume that holding concurrent positions automatically harms Muhammadiyah.
What is more important is ensuring that the organisation’s control mechanisms continue to function properly. If there are concerns about potential conflicts of interest, the solution is to strengthen the internal oversight system. Transparency, accountability, and openness must continue to be developed in every organisational process. This step is far more substantive than making resignation the only way out. For a healthy organisation does not depend merely on changing figures. A healthy organisation is characterised by its ability to build a system capable of overseeing whoever holds the trust.
Ahead of the Muhammadiyah Muktamar, the attention of the organisation’s members should be directed towards larger strategic agendas. The challenges of education, the Muslim community’s economy, health, technology, and community empowerment require substantial collective energy. Muhammadiyah needs big ideas to respond to the rapidly changing times. Therefore, the debate over positions should be placed within a broader and more visionary perspective.