'Bughot'

Supporters of President Abdurrahman Wahid have upped the ante in the current power struggle between the country's political elite to a dangerous level by broaching the concept of bughot, or an attempt to overthrow a government regarded as lawful under Islamic law, to denote the activities of his political opponents. Leaders of Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), the Islamic organization which is the backbone of Abdurrahman's political support, are currently pondering whether this religious concept can be applied to today's political situation.

Basically, if those people who are trying to unseat the President could be construed as engaging in bughot, NU could effectively declare a jihad against them. Such a declaration would legitimize spilling the blood of the President's political adversaries, and unleash his fanatic supporters on a killing spree. Their current slogan in defending the President, "We will die for you," would change to "We will kill for you".

While the use of threats and intimidation remains fashionable in Indonesian politics, there must be a limit on how far they can go. Legitimized killing, to which a declaration of jihad could lead, is far too excessive. Supporters of the President are playing a very dangerous game by toying with the idea of branding his opponents as engaging in bughot.

As the row between the President and his adversaries intensifies, supporters of both camps are resorting to the use of force, or at least the threat of force, as part of their psychological campaign to intimidate their opponents. Students seeking his resignation, for example, occupied the House of Representatives (DPR) building for a brief period last month. Supporters of the President conducted a sit-in at the DPR building, some brandishing swords to make their point. They blocked the port in Banyuwangi, East Java, on at least two occasions, disrupting ferry services between Java and Bali. The President's supporters have vandalized buildings and facilities of the Golkar Party and the Muhammadiyah Muslim organization. They have painted crosses on the houses of some Muhammadiyah leaders in East Java.

Although there have been some violent incidents, they were minor and understandable by the standards of Indonesia's nascent democracy. Force and intimidation were the preferred tool of the past authoritarian regime to impose its will on the rest of the nation. Today's political leaders, while learning the ropes of democracy in a civil society, still resort at times to these old practices to help get their political message across.

If we accept the notion that Indonesia is in a transition from a repressed to a democratic society, the use of force and intimidation is a legacy of the past. Ultimately, such practices are not acceptable in the political conduct of a real democracy.

President Abdurrahman Wahid's position has lately become even more tenacious now as more and more political factions in the House of Representatives review their support for him. They have effectively told the President either to resign, or face the embarrassment of being impeached.

The President however has vowed to fight, and his supporters, mainly from NU, have rallied behind him. While we may dismiss NU's decision this week to look into the concept of bughot as simply part of its campaign to intimidate the President's opponents, there are disturbing signs that these are not merely tough words. Even if they are simply intended to intimidate, the situation could get out of control.

Hundreds of young people, professing blind loyalty to President Abdurrahman, have already enlisted with the "death squads". The use of Islamic symbols like bughot and jihad to condone violence, including killing, makes the condition even more explosive. These die-hard supporters will kill in the name of their religion and their leaders. NU's youth wing, Ansor, has had a history of violence, including its role in the massacre of suspected communists in the late 1960s.

What is most lamentable is the failure of the President and of NU leaders to issue an outright condemnation of their supporters' plan to use violence and intimidation. If anything, they appear to be encouraging their supporters. If the situation were to get out of control, there would be widespread killing in this country. The President and NU leaders would have to bear the lion's share of the responsibility for this.