Clear programs are the way of democracy

Clear programs are the way of democracy

By Santi W.E. Soekanto

JAKARTA (JP): Abdurrahman Wahid "fights for democracy by
empowering the grassroots. As a Muslim figure, what is important
for Gus Dur is to fight for the values of Islam. The fight for
his group's interests takes second importance.

"By fighting for programs that are delineated in Islam, Gus
Dur can then say that he is fighting for Islam. Which is why he
can easily move among and be accepted by non-Muslim groups.

"Amien Rais is a politician who emphasizes his sectarian
identity, whereas Gus Dur begins his endeavors with programs that
are based upon Islamic values. For Gus Dur, programs are more
important than identity. The Muslim community is one where the
teaching of Islam is implemented well. However, in addition to
speaking up about programs, Gus Dur also speaks about the
solidarity of the Muslim community (ummat)."

"Gus Dur is a modern politician who anticipates changes in the
community. In the future, political approaches that are based
upon programs will have a greater role to play, though this is
not to say that sectarian politics will cease to be."

No. The passages full of praise above have not been written by
one of President Abdurrahman's ulema supporters who think he can
do no wrong and are therefore ready to shed blood and die as
martyrs in defense of his "legitimate presidency."

They are actually the words of the astute political scientist,
Melbourne-based Arief Budiman, in a 1995 article that compared
the "sectarian/identity politics" as opposed to "program
politics", with the former being represented by leading
politician Amien and the latter by Abdurrahman.

Arief wrote the article in response to the journalist Arief
Afandi's attempt at describing Amien as engaging in "high
politics" and Gus Dur as the proponent of politics that make use
of a cultural approach. Arief Afandi had contributed to a 1995
book in Indonesian titled "Up and Bottom Democracy: The Polemic
on the Strategies of Struggle of Gus Dur and Amien Rais."

As far as anyone can tell, Arief Budiman's political analysis
is as sharp as ever. If the passages no longer accurately portray
Gus Dur, then it because he has so changed so much.

Never mind many Muslim groups' accusations that Gus Dur has
actually betrayed Islam because of his alleged involvement in
scandals, maybe Arief's portrayal of Gus Dur has only become
inaccurate now -- when we have a different social and political
setting than the one in which Arief placed Gus Dur, namely the
setting of the New Order.

Arief Budiman wrote further, that in contrast to Amien, "Gus
Dur often takes a critical stance against the government while
placing himself closer to the grassroots. It is only sometimes
that he uses the same language with the officials -- to the
surprise of his supporters. Usually, though, Gus Dur would soon
return to his nature."

Indeed Gus Dur might have been all that when he had to stand
in opposition to Soeharto. Now that Gus Dur is the ruler, the
portrayal is certainly an inaccuracy.

But then again, maybe Gus Dur has not changed. What people
think of now as his shortcomings as President have always
existed. Those claiming to have been disillusioned have no one
else to blame but themselves -- never mind their excuse about
having to choose a lesser evil than Megawati Soekarnoputri or
B.J. Habibie in the 1999 presidential election.

In January 1999, Gus Dur and Amien Rais behaved as if they had
buried their decade-old hatchets and posed for photographs,
shaking hands to display their new found friendliness.

They vowed to fight together for four purposes: the
restoration of security and order, the implementation of fair and
democratic elections, the positive convergence between their
organizations, the Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama, and the
upholding of equality before the law, even with regard to former
president Soeharto.

It is not difficult to see that the two leaders have failed
all targets. Insecurity and terror are the order of the day in
Jakarta, Maluku, Aceh and elsewhere. The 1999 elections might
have been praised by the West as the first democratically held
since 1955, despite irregularities, but that did not compel
anyone to respect the results.

Positive convergence of Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama? Gus
Dur's supporters have decreed that it would be religiously
permissible, halal, to spill the blood of Amien and his friends,
and that if they died in the process, they would go to heaven.

The upholding of the supremacy of the law, which applies also
to Soeharto? Let's not waste words on assessing this particular
one.

As for friendliness between Amien and Gus Dur, anyone can see
that there is never any love lost between the two leaders of the
two largest Islamic organizations -- whose mandates are to spread
the word of Islam, which is peace on earth.

Amien has reportedly repented for his support of Gus Dur's
presidency, and asked Allah's forgiveness for his mistakes when
he performed the umrah last year. Gus Dur, however, remains as
unrepentant as ever but that may be because he did not see any
need to do so. As he cleverly expressed, "I did not ask to be
made President."

Those who have claimed to have been disillusioned by Gus Dur
would be better advised to remember that the man has always been
one of the most controversial people ever, that he has always
been erratic, that he is full of idiosyncrasy that has not only
been tolerated by his supporters but has actually been taken as
proof of his superiority as the representative of Allah
(waliyyulah) on earth.

And he is the leader of an organization that has baffled those
scholars -- both domestic and foreign -- because of the paradoxes
that have enriched it throughout its existence.

This is an organization whose members value independence
highly, are wary of external challenges, but seem to accept the
decisions of their religious teachers, the kyai, unquestioningly
to the point of blind loyalty. Established in 1926, NU forswore
politics more than a decade ago, and pledged to return to being a
religious and social movement, but then abandoned these 1926
principles and engaged in political ploys which could have come
out of a political guru's strategy book.

Those who observed the 1994 congress of NU in Cipasung, West
Java, will remember how members dressed down Gus Dur for
egotistical leadership but then fought the hardest to have him
re-elected chairman. When their candidate appeared to be on the
brink of losing to underdog Abu Hasan, these same ulemas prayed
fervently, hands reaching upward for divine help.

Then, in private, these very same ulemas made Gus Dur the butt
of their jokes. It is also these ulemas who, upon hearing about
Gus Dur's victory, chanted the shalawat Badar, praises of Prophet
Muhammad and Islam's past heroes, as a symbol of their respect
for the man. Given his poor eyesight, Gus Dur entered the hall
with his hands reaching out in front of him, half carried and
half-guided by hands into his supporters' embrace, to take up
another term of leadership.

Of course, the ulemas kissed Gus Dur's hands as a pledge of
allegiance. Never mind his affection for one big plan of opening
ties with Israel, of his then alleged acceptance of "hot money"
from national gambling. They dismissed those concerns as small
because they were loyal to him. As they are now.

If Gus Dur defies any attempts at explaining him years ago,
why then do people now claim to be disillusioned?

The writer is a journalist at The Jakarta Post.