Democratizing religious bureaucracy from the state

Muhamad Ali, Contributor/Jakarta

The Indonesian Conference on Religion and Peace (ICRP) recently issued a "moral political contract", urging presidential candidates, if elected, not to intervene in religious affairs and not to discriminate against any particular religion: The new president and minister of religious affairs should revoke all discriminatory policies against particular religions and should focus on policies protecting all religions.

Such a moral political contract is a new phenomenon, but the main message is a classic one, that is, how the state should not intervene in religious affairs and should not be discriminatory. The contract, however, implied that the Ministry of Religious Affairs continued to be necessary: What needs to be done is to democratize it.

The existence of the ministry is related to the unresolved question of the nature of the Indonesian nation-state. Indonesia has had three options available: An Islamic state, a purely secular state, or a Pancasila state.

The first was not a viable one because of the philosophical, theological, political and sociological problems associated with it. The second was much better than the first, but in its current form, Indonesia cannot be called a purely secular state.

Some regard Indonesia as a secular state, but with some qualification. Charles D. Smith (1995), for example, argued: "The Indonesian state is officially secular, yet sponsors secular and religious educational systems and maintains secular and religious courts."

Others perceive Indonesia to be a generally religious country, something between a secular and a religious one. In any case, Indonesia has been recognized as providing a third way between a purely secular and religious state.

Therefore, in line with the nature of the state, Indonesia has maintained the ministry. In addition, the continuing existence of the ministry is the only realistic option today. The first pillar of Pancasila recognizes belief in God, whatever it might mean to different people. This pillar differentiates Indonesia from other multireligious countries like the United States, France or Britain.

There are different kinds of religious pluralism: total separation between religion and politics, with no state intervention whatsoever, and limited separation in which the state shows no preference. Indonesia fits the latter model rather than the former.

The ministry is intended to serve as a mediator between the state and religious communities. It cannot serve as a recognizer of religions or sects because religiosity does not need the recognition of others, let alone state recognition. What it can do is to manage administrative matters related to religious communities to ensure justice for all in the allocation of public resources.

The main tasks of the ministry are therefore necessary: To develop the religious life of Indonesian society, to maintain religious harmony and to participate in improving the social well-being of Indonesian citizens.

The ministry has taken several forms and has undergone several developments from its establishment until today, but its formation has meant that religion has become bureaucratized.

The anthropologist, Clifford Geertz, once argued that the ministry was objectively "for all intents and purposes, a santri affair from top to bottom." Geertz observed that the ministry was an exclusively Muslim one, rather than a ministry for all religious communities. Likewise, Bakker, a Roman Catholic, criticized the ministry as "a bulwark of Islam" and as an "outpost for an Islamic state".

In contrast, Dutch scholar B.J. Boland contended that the ministry promoted a multireligious society that upheld religious pluralism and tolerance. The ministry, Boland argued, allowed religions to function effectively in state and society. It offered a middle way between the two conflicting ideas of a secular state and an Islamic state.

Former president Abdurrahman Wahid, for example, regards the ministry as a political compromise, which serves as an institutional substitute for the former political aspirations of Islamic groups for an Islamic state. The ministry was initially designed as a temporary compromise but it has become a permanent fixture of the Indonesian state with a unique role.

Therefore, given its long history and important role, the existence of the ministry should be maintained.

However, such argument should not ignore negative developments related to the ministry, which often outweigh its positive role. For example, the ministry is now embroiled in a bitter fight for survival between secularists and conservatives. It has still become a crucial battleground for diverse and often conflicting political and religious organizations.

In addition, the ministry has often been unjust and discriminatory with regard to religions other than Islam. Subdivisions for other religions remain unfamiliar to religious communities other than Muslims. Religion services for non-Muslims are barely perceptible. Theological institutes of non-Islamic religions, for example, receive the least attention.

Under such conditions, democratization of religious bureaucracy should be undertaken. The ministry should now become one for all religions and faiths. The ministry should become a ministry of religions, rather than a ministry of Islamic religion. The ministry should reflect religious diversity and should be an agent of religious harmony.

The religious bureaucracy should not limit creative religious rethinking within religious communities. The state should provide a climate conducive to religious creativity and development, which can enlighten the government and civil society and can support advancement in politics, economics and culture.

The writer is a lecturer at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University (UIN), Jakarta. He is pursuing a Ph.D in history at the University of Hawaii. He can be reached at muhali74@hotmail.com