'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.