Can religious ethics be politicized?

By Th. Sumartana

YOGYAKARTA (JP): When Adolf Hitler strode onto Germany's political stage offering his national socialism, the Protestant theologians were divided into two groups. The official church, which constituted the majority of German Lutherans, became tacit supporters while the rest started thinking about an alternative social and political option.

Religious thinkers such as Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer were representatives of the religious resistance against Hitler's Naziism. In a normal situation, they would speak about political ethics. However, when the community's condition became extremely critical and the threat against humanity became most palpable, they took their stance. They mustered all existing religious exponents to launch a total resistance, thereby joining ethical concerns with the whole theological system.

Barth's rejection of Hitler's Naziism was based on the conviction that Naziism was a form of totalitarian dictatorship which demanded man to dedicate himself totally, body and soul, and to ignore the image of man. Naziism not only limited people's freedom, but also destroyed it. Barth said that Hitler, with his political experiment, did not appreciate the meaning of the state. Hitler's Naziism was not representative of a state and was a form of totally corrupt power.

Similar things happened to Catholic theologians in Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s. This period saw failures of the so-called "developmentalism" in that part of the world. The theologians were facing a complex choice of very oppressive forms of capitalism, as well as the official church, which seemed to take sides with the political power and the capitalists. They then composed a theology which became known under the name "liberation theology".

In a different era in Indonesia, an idea transformed itself into a policy of political ethics launched by the Dutch colonial government at the beginning of this century. These political ethics were a mixture of various aspirations, interspersed with motives and interests.

First, the power elite felt the need to make improvements in physical and social infrastructure for the indigenous people to prevent the "Dutch Indies boat from capsizing". They also wanted to create a kind of middle class who could act as middlemen between the government and the people.

Second, the capitalists who owned coffee, indigo, tea, rubber, sugar cane and tobacco plantations wanted to treat their workers better. In the previous decade, some of the workers were moribund due to poverty or died in an epidemic.

Third, men of religion who were concerned with the dire condition of people proposed to the government to improve the people's lot by setting aside a certain amount of funds. The religious men knew very well that the wealth of the Dutch was obtained from the toils and sacrifices of the colonized people. Hence, they spoke of "debt of honor".

This policy of ethics was also supported by feudal ethics, which perpetuate the hierarchical relationship between "big man" and "small man", so the policy of ethics was complete as a measure coming from higher up as a generosity toward the people in lower positions. The feudal hierarchy had indeed perfected the policy of ethics.

The policy of ethics was a form of colonial philanthropy applied in the lives of the indigenous people in the Dutch East Indies. This kind of philanthropy was questioned by the national movement activists. Like the rejection of philanthropy coming from the feudal people, the ethical demands fought for in the era of the national movement were no less important than the recognition of equal rights as men and as citizens.

Political ethics in Indonesia can be gleaned from the values which formed the basis of the struggle for independence. Freedom and independence are the ethical values which form the basis for the existence of a nation. Feudal philanthropy may be somewhat more polite than colonial philanthropy, but there would not be courtesy in political ethics without an endeavor to enforce the principles of justice for the people. In feudal ethics, it is possible to oppress another person in an elegant and courteous way. Hierarchical philanthropy, as seen in said policy of ethics, has the basic aim of perpetuating the existing power.

One disturbing question is: How is the problem seen in religious circles at present? There are two interesting things that may become our reference for discussion. First, the excellent book by Paul Knitter,No Other Name? which explicitly joins two realities of the challenges faced by the world of religions. One is communication among religions; the other is concern about problems on social justice. Knitter has concluded that in facing humanity's problems nowadays, men of religion, ethically speaking, can not work on their own. Religions must unite, cooperate with and support each other in their ethical duties.

Another thought is found in an anthology of writings compiled by editor Emile Sahliyeh, Religious Resurgence and Politics in the Contemporary World. This book reveals the legality of religions to involve themselves in politics. Religions cannot be neutral toward the sufferings and the heavy loads borne by the community. Therefore, religious concern with politics starts from the assumption of a prophetic call to instill ethical values in sociopolitical life. It is for carrying out those duties that there is an "awakening of religion" in many parts of the world including Poland, Palestine, the Philippines, Bosnia, Iran and Latin America.

What about religious ethics in Indonesia's current sociopolitical life? A question difficult to answer is: Is it possible to have a common language in religious circles and the government for the formulation of political ethics? What can be done by prominent religious figures in responding to this challenge?

The answer hereto edges on the assumption that there has not been much change in the way of thinking of political ethics since the introduction of the policy of ethics in the Dutch East Indies at the beginning of this century.

If this assumption is right, the correct response would be to start from the freedom fighters era. The struggle of Indonesia's founding fathers should be the starting point to establish sociopolitical ethics in Indonesia. Thus, themes like democracy, human rights, social justice, emancipation, economic productivity, freedom of expression, national unity, religious tolerance and others are the points of the struggle for establishing political ethics in Indonesia.

In democracy, people are entitled to choose their own leaders. People are free to exercise effective control and correction on various mistakes made by the political elite in the management of matters concerning the people. The freedom to exercise control is a criteria for democratic life. Thus, people's sovereignty, and the right to participate in sociopolitical life is really put into practice.

One of the current problems in our political ethics is apparently the use of violence or coercion. Violence often comes from fear. When fear is the general condition of sociopolitical life, one party inspires fear in another, and people live in fear, afraid of others' fear. Like Shakespeare said: "It's your fear I fear."

Fear and mutual distrust may lead to endless enmity. No less important is fear of failing. Many people feel they should never, can never and will never fail. Consequently, fear of failure haunts them in such a way, consciously or not, in order that they not fail. The obsession with fear of failure can result in certain forms of violence. Failure is a common thing. It is even very human. We are neither supermen nor angels.

Power and the use of violence often form a vicious circle, especially in facing the difficulties of safeguarding social cohesion from the diversity of ethnicity, religions and cultures. Social conflicts will also emerge endlessly. I quote Reinhold Niebuhr in Moral Man and Immoral Society : "If social cohesion is impossible without coercion, and coercion is impossible without creation of social injustice, and the destruction of injustice without the use of further coercion, are we not in an endless cycle of social conflict? ... And if power is needed to destroy power, how is the new power to be made ethical?"

In the context of the use of violence, Niebuhr says that violence always tends to bring forth injustice, although its aim is justice. Violence is one of the clearest expressions of the principle of "the end justifies the means", a thing that we have thought only the defunct Indonesian Communist Party was convinced of and put in practice.

Therefore, religious ethics need to consistently offer non- violent approaches toward political problems. In solving sociopolitical problems, the culture of violence must be avoided, because once violence is committed, it will become a habit.

In facing social conflicts, between community groups or between the community and the government, Niebuhr sees the non- violent approach as the greatest contribution of the religions toward political ethics. This is a characteristic emerging from religious ethics. There is no imagination and perspective of social thinking from the secular world of thinking that is capable of arriving at the view of non-violent ethics.

In Niebuhr's opinion, religions must always be alert toward the possibility of making mistakes in political life, both in the vertical and the horizontal sense. The political ethics being offered by religious circles should be critical and partial to the weak and those who are victims of certain political decisions.

According to Niebuhr, the oppressed have a higher moral right to challenge their oppressors than those who have to maintain their rule by force. Partiality of the weak will in turn become a pillar for the creation of political ethics, which will encourage the creation of a healthy, democratic, just and everlasting political life.

The writer is Director of the Institute for Inter-Faith Dialogue in Indonesia, Yogyakarta.