Democratizing religious bureaucracy from the state

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