Considering NU as the Nation's Moral Guardian

The commotion surrounding the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) Congress is focused more on who will become rais aam and general chairman. Observers, and especially the muktamirin (congress participants), are generally busy calculating the map of support and how the configuration will play out, including its political impact. Yet the urgent issue that needs to be answered is: what is NU present for in the midst of our society, or indeed our nation, which is facing so many moral challenges?

This question is highly relevant as Indonesia enters an era full of paradoxes. On one hand, democracy is maturing, the economy continues to grow, technology is developing rapidly, and access to information is increasingly open. On the other hand, we are witnessing worrying symptoms: democratic maturity tends to decay due to increasingly transactional politics, corruption that has not yet subsided, massive spread of disinformation, prolonged social polarisation, and the strengthening of a pragmatic culture that is slowly eroding the ethics of public life.

In such a situation, this nation actually needs not only strong political leaders, but also a moral force capable of guiding the nation’s direction. In my view, this is where NU’s position becomes highly strategic.

Since its founding by the duumvirate of KH Hasyim Asy’ari and KH Wahab Chasbullah in 1926, NU has not been a political organisation. It was born as a religious movement tasked with preserving the tradition of Islamic scholarship, guiding the faithful, and nurturing peaceful social life. Politics is merely one sphere of service, not the primary goal.

Therefore, NU’s greatest strength actually does not lie in its tens of millions of members, the thousands of pesantren it owns, or the breadth of its organisational network down to the village level. Its greatest strength lies precisely in the moral authority built through a long history of service to the ummah and the nation.

Power can be obtained through elections, positions, or coalitions. Moral authority, however, is only born from exemplary conduct, consistency, and public trust built over a long period. It must not happen that, because it is too busy pursuing political strength, moral authority is neglected.

For a century, NU has demonstrated its ability to maintain a balance between religion and nationhood. When some groups pitted Islam against Pancasila, NU showed that the two can go hand in hand. When social conflict threatened national unity, NU kiai came forward as peacemakers. When radicalism grew, NU appeared carrying a friendly, moderate face of Islam that respects diversity. This is an invaluable social capital.

Because of this role, at the global level, NU’s position is increasingly strategic. The Islamic world is searching for a model of the relationship between religion, democracy, and modern life. Through its experience in blending Islamic values with plural national life, it is not impossible that NU could emerge as an attractive reference for many countries.

However, precisely because it possesses great moral capital, NU faces challenges that are not light. The larger the organisation, the greater the temptation to become absorbed in the vortex of power. In a democratic state, the relationship between civil society organisations and the government is indeed unavoidable. Cooperation is needed to accelerate development and serve the community. However, cooperation must not eliminate independence.

NU must remain able to say something is right when it is indeed right. Conversely, NU must also be brave enough to say something is wrong when state policy does not side with the interests of the people. This is where the meaning of being the nation’s moral guardian lies. It does not mean always being outside the government or becoming an opposition to every policy. Rather, it is about how to manage the ability to maintain a healthy distance from power. Close when needed to provide solutions, but independent enough to convey criticism when the values of justice, humanity, and the people’s interests are threatened.

In the Islamic tradition, such a role has long been recognised. Imam Al-Ghazali once reminded that the corruption of religion often begins when scholars become too close to rulers, while the corruption of the state occurs when rulers no longer wish to heed the advice of scholars. The ideal relationship between scholars and power is not one of mutual domination, but of mutual reminder. This aspect will remain relevant for NU, especially at this time when power