Clarity needed on state affairs on religion

A religion does not need government's recognition to exist, says President Abdurrahman Wahid. The following is an excerpt of an interview with Bahtiar Effendy, the deputy director of the Indonesian Business Ethics Study and Development Institute, who has written a book on Islam and the state.

Question: On Saturday, President Abdurrahman Wahid, or Gus Dur, said government recognition of religions was not needed. Could you tell us how the New Order policy originated?

Answer: The official recognition of only five religions cannot be separated from the failed coup of the banned Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). The military, then the main player in mainstream politics, assumed that PKI was equal to atheism and that ideologically there was no place for that in the country.

The five religions were considered the faiths held by the majority of Indonesians and the policy was supported by religious communities. Some debated whether Confucianism, for instance, was a religion or not. I think one deciding factor (in excluding Confucianism) was (first president) Sukarno's closeness with China and (his rivals') desire to distance themselves ...

Q: Abdurrahman seemed to hint at the separation of religion and state. How do you see this?

A: Abdurrahman's statements have been inconsistent. At the opening of the Nahdlatul Ulama congress (last November), which I attended, he said religion and state were inseparable.

What would things be like if the state was entirely separated from religion? Would the Ministry of Religious Affairs, which Abdurrahman's father Wahid Hasyim strived to set up, be dissolved? Is the state ready to stop interfering in the activities of nightspots during Ramadhan? Is it ready to manage the excess from the public's likely unpreparedness?

Historically, we have not been able to have formal and constitutional relations between the state and religion; that's no problem as long as the state does not issue policies contradicting certain faiths. We've always said Indonesia is neither a theocracy or secular state, but that the state facilitates the interests of religious communities.

I think Abdurrahman is just annoyed that the Ministry of Religious Affairs has been accused of being discriminative to certain faiths.

The concept of separating religion from state is unclear. A secular country like the United States swears in its presidents with their hand on the Bible, and prints "In God We Trust" on its currency. Maybe what we don't want is religion entering the legal area, but we would have to be very careful... we would have to rewrite everything like the first point of the Pancasila (state ideology), the belief in one God.

Abdurrahman's intention may be partial accommodation of areas defined as those under state (authority) and those under religion. His remarks and the following discourse might signal an end to formal discrimination; not a separation of state and religion, but a balanced freedom among religions. Therefore, we see the lifting of the ban against the Chinese New Year celebrations.

Q: What function should the state maintain regarding religion?

A: Facilitating the needs of religious communities. Don't blame the government for regulating the haj (pilgrimage). There have been many complaints against the haj arrangements by the private sector. You can't leave such things to the market because the religious needs mean that not all people going on the pilgrimage can afford all (costly) facilities.

The idea of separating religion and state cannot just copy other models... Asia is the cradle of large religions and its history of resistance against colonialism is heavily imbued with religiosity.

The relations of state and religion have never been discussed thoroughly; the last attempt at (a national level of) discussions was stopped by Sukarno. We've been forced to accept Pancasila as the state foundation and under Soeharto it became the compulsory basis of parties and organizations. However, this crisis has stopped us from (advancing) such a discourse.

Q: What would be the realistic and urgent role of the state regarding religion now?

A: The development now (of more open talks) is good but what's urgent is equal treatment of all religions. Now we have a lot of trouble. We have regulations saying permits must be sought for places of worship. But there are those of certain religions who say they are discriminated against and that they are never given the permits, so they set up their places of worship anyway.

We have a government regulation on the freedom of special schools on their teaching of religion, which violates the 1989 Education Law, which rules that all students must receive religious teaching by teachers of the respective religions. So we must discuss what is to be arranged by the state and what is not.

Q: Has this issue become more urgent in the wake of religious conflicts?

A: Yes, religion here has not only lost its humanity but also its basic rules. We have been raised with negative rules, such as "do not expose your differences," while differences must be exposed to infuse tolerance. Tolerance has indeed occurred in society but this has happened through our daily interaction, while the government has imposed a ban on public discourse on ethnic, class, racial and religious differences (SARA).

The SARA policy must end or society will never mature in resolving its conflicts. The conflicts in Ambon and other small towns cannot only be because of social and economic gaps; there is a factor of religion there based on state policy.

Q: What is the basic argument in your book on Islam and the state?

A: I am saying that the relation between state and religion must be more substantial... touching on values. It should refrain from imposing legal and formal matters which raise objections from religious communities. The state should be more sensitive.

Many Muslims, for instance, were hurt by the (official) social philanthropical contribution with prizes, (the now defunct government-sponsored lottery Sumbangan Dana Sosial Berhadiah) SDSB, feeling that it was a form of gambling (which is forbidden in Islam). The Muamalat Bank was banned on the grounds that all banks must have interest (Islamic banks forbid interest). It then gave into formality, stating it operated "with zero percent interest". (anr)