'Defenders of Truth' force beyond NU's control: Leader

'Defenders of Truth' force beyond NU's control: Leader

By Ainur R. Sophiaan

SURABAYA (JP) : Ali Maschan Moesa, chief of the Nahdlatul
Ulama (NU)'s East Java chapter, said the NU members' pledge to
defend President Abdurrahman Wahid to the death represented the
grass roots' protest against the political elite as well as the
fact that the phenomenon was out of the organization's control.

Speaking to The Jakarta Post in his modest home here last
weekend, Ali said bickering among political leaders had created
numerous conflicts that threatened to jeopardize Islamic
brotherhood.

"It is impossible to remove the conflicts altogether. The most
important thing is to manage them elegantly to ease tensions and
resolve the problems," he said.

Efforts have been made to cultivate brotherhood among members
of the NU and Muhammadiyah in East Java, and dilute the impact of
the protracted standoff between the President and People's
Consultative Assembly Speaker Amien Rais. Not much progress has
been made however, as political tension among the elite remains
to this day.

Ali said the NU had a distinct tradition of solidarity. There
are two types of solidarity among members, namely mechanical and
functional. "The first type is typical of the grass roots where
they emulate their leaders. The second type changes according to
the situation," he said.

Ali, who is also a lecturer at Sunan Ampel State Academy of
Islamic Studies (IAIN), conceded that it was easier to speak
about cultivating brotherhood than to implement it. As for
cultivating political brotherhood, Ali said: "It's almost like a
mission impossible, despite the Koran enjoining believers to
justice, egalitarianism and liberty. (Spreading those values) is
our perennial task anyway."

Following is an excerpt of his interview with the Post.

Question: What is causing the current tension between the
different Muslim groups?

Answer: For sure, the NU is not involved in practical
politics. But we have to deal with the excesses of the
politicians in Jakarta. My religion advises against presenting
the truth or revealing falsehood in a blunt manner.

It's very difficult to discern whether the current problems
stem from religious or political issues, (but) in the minds of
the grass roots (the problems) come from higher places...

The tensions have degenerated into rivalry between the NU and
Muhammadiyah. Why?

That's the problem. In my opinion, Amien Rais had wanted to
topple the President as early as three months after Gus Dur took
office. It's impossible for (the NU) grass roots to forget the
fact that Amien is the former chairman of Muhammadiyah and Gus
Dur is former chairman of the NU.

For some people, this is a political issue, not a religious
one. But nothing in this world is clear-cut. Political and
religious issues affect our lives simultaneously.

Actually, the conflicts and tensions have not ruined the
brotherhood among us. Our friendship with Muhammadiyah leaders
here is OK. We communicate. It is the political elite who are
causing tensions that trickle down to the grass roots. How
unfortunate that our political leaders have created this strife
just when the people are getting ready to proceed with
democratization after the 1999 general election that had no
casualties.

How will you restrain the NU members from venting their
outrage should the House of Representatives (DPR) issue the
second memorandum against the President later this month?

If the second memorandum is issued, people will be even more
contentious. The tension cannot be endured by any party. (The
tension was actually heightened) when Muhammadiyah leaders
visited Vice President Megawati to tell her that Islam did not
forbid a woman from becoming president. It caused a strong
conflict among the grass roots.

In the meantime, we cannot unfairly say that the (the NU
supporters of Gus Dur) have resorted to violence. It's the
political elite who have generated violence and acted
tyrannically. They're the ones who are anarchical -- they may not
be brandishing swords, sickles or machetes, but they are abusing
the Constitution and the laws. This particular political game is
no different from any other maneuver or trick.

What are your views on Gus Dur's supporters who resorted to
vandalism when expressing their outrage over the first DPR
memorandum of censure against the President?

That's the honesty with which the grass roots voiced (their
opinion). We certainly support campaigns to defend Gus Dur to sit
out his tenure until 2004 and to uphold the Constitution. But
there's no question that we condemn the use of violence. I have
conveyed this message time and again.

Although there is a possibility that once the DPR issues the
second memorandum, the grass roots would display their emotions
more forcefully. The courts should decide once and for all
whether the President was indeed involved in those financial
scandals as the DPR members alleged he was.

How can local leaders reduce the tension at the grassroots
level?

With regards to the prevailing conflict at the grassroots
level, we should fight to mitigate the tensions at all costs. I
hope no conflicts would occur while dialogs to break the
political stalemate are being arranged. In short, leaders must
learn from the people's sensitivity.

Some people say political overtones are increasingly marked at
the NU. Is that true?

I think this happens not only in the NU. It's the House of
Representatives that seems to be increasingly politicking. The
legislators never once spoke up during the 32 years of Soeharto's
regime. But now all the legislators are competing to speak out,
regardless that it may harm the interests of the people.

But isn't politicking at the NU contravening the Khittah 26
(the organization's declaration in 1926 to forswear politics)
which your 1984 congress had campaigned to readopt?

Not really. We are not fighting for power. It is my duty to
give the people political education in the context of the
political culture. The NU is not involved in the election of
certain governor or regent etc.

As our political parties have yet to (function) in full, it is
worthwhile to educate people on how to abide by the Constitution
and respect one another. So where is the contradiction to the
Khittah 1926?

A group of Gus Dur's supporters have formed the "Defenders of
the Truth" force and are planning to throng Jakarta in order to
defend the President to the death. What are you going to do about
it?

If such an action was carried out, there would be risks.
Nevertheless, it is their right to protest and voice their
concerns.

In my opinion, the DPR members should be responsible for these
problems. The "Defenders of Truth" force, fairly speaking, is
beyond the (authority of) the NU. We don't know. We had never
tolerated violence and anarchy.

As for defending somebody to the death, it is not exclusively
the tradition of the NU, but also other groups such as PDI
Perjuangan (whose members) collected bloodied fingerprints (in
support of Megawati) ahead of the General Session of the People's
Consultative Assembly in October 1999.

I'd like to remind you of how security officers had been
unfairly tolerant toward members of the Front of the Defender of
Islam (FPI) whose members raided and vandalized discotheques for
spreading vice, and entered the palace brandishing swords.

Don't blame (the NU) if the phenomenon (of the ready-to-die
forces continues) unless the DPR members change their attitude
and conduct.

Some see the blind loyalty of Gus Dur's supporters as a
representation of the patron-client relationship in the NU
pesantren community?

They are defending Gus Dur with their minds and to the dictate
of their conscience. They know the difference between falsehood
and the truth. They feel humiliated by the abuse of law and order
by the political elite. I think the people are honest and
sincere, but the political elite have manipulated them to further
their ambitions for power.

What are the best and worst case scenarios of the present
situation?

I am optimistic the political elite will reach a compromise.
Politics is (an art of) of alternating between conflict and
compromise, though it does separate the chaff from the rice. On
the other hand, if the DPR members went ahead and issued the
second memorandum, a conflict might indeed be inevitable. That's
all.