Has Amien Rais overstepped government bounds?

Has Amien Rais overstepped government bounds?

The resignation of Amien Rais from the chairmanship of the
Council of Experts of the influential Association of Indonesian
Moslem Intellectuals (ICMI), has caused an uproar partly due to
the controversy leading to his resignation. The Jakarta Post
talked to political observer Muhammad A.S. Hikam about the issue.

Question: How do you see the problem?

Answer: The case simply shows that the power that be is
overwhelmingly strong in our "democracy" especially when it has
to face an intellectual like Amien Rais. Once he criticized
government policies, especially when it involved certain elite
officials and although he was an ICMI leader -- an organization
which has a close link to the government -- he was nevertheless
forced to relinquish his position.

It was done as a kind of warning to others, outside or inside
ICMI, not to be too critical of the government.

Q: When Amien Rais resigned he made an ambiguous statement about
his case. Why was that?

A: On one hand, he had to make a formal answer. On the other
hand, as an honest person, he couldn't help himself from
revealing the truth. That's why on a formal occasion he said that
he resigned because of a heavy workload in his capacity as the
leader of Muhammadiyah (one of the largest Moslem organizations
in Indonesia). But on another occasion he told journalists that
he was forced to resign because of his critical remarks about
social disparity, the practice of monopoly, collusion and others.
And the real cause of all this was actually his critical
attitude.

Q: Didn't he realize that his conversation with journalists would
go into print?

A: That's right. That's always been a problem for a person like
Amien who is not a politician. He will never be able to hide
something too long behind formalities. He will always say
everything as it is. Everyone realizes that. Again, the real
problem of his case was indeed his critical attitude.

Q: Are you trying to say that he was forced to step down because
of his critical remarks?

A: It's obvious. Amien's statements clearly show that.

Q: What effect will Amien's case have on the Muhammadiyah?

A: It's not clear at the moment. There are signs that some elite
leaders in the organization, like Lukman Harun, are trying to
exploit the case as an opportunity to topple Amien or at least
make him less favorable among the Muhammadiyah community.

Q: Do you think it's possible for Amien to be toppled in such a
way?

A: There is of course always a possibility. The question is how
big is the possibility. In this case, as long as the Muhammadiyah
elite leaders have a common stance on the case, Amien's position
as a top leader in the organization will not be in peril.
Secondly, as long as there is no intervention from the
government, Muhammadiyah elite leaders will continue to support
Amien.

With the government's support and blessing, Muhammadiyah
leaders like Lukman Harun or Sutrisno Mutham will probably be
able to create trouble for Amien. It's unfortunate that unlike
Nahdlatul Ulama (another prominent Moslem organization),
Muhammadiyah has never experienced any external pressure.

Q: What signs did you see to say that Harun is trying to
destabilize Amien's leadership?

A: A media report said, for example, that Harun is licking old
sores when he touched on Amien's critical remarks about
succession. He also said that Amien has brought politics into
Muhammadiyah which is supposed to be an educational and religious
organization. Harun always emphasizes that Muhammadiyah is not a
political organization or an NGO. In other words, he seems to be
wanting to paint a bad image about Amien's leadership of
Muhammadiyah.

Amien himself earlier warned Lukman Harun to avoid
exaggerating things in Muhammadiyah for it could endanger Harun's
own position in the organization. I have noticed that
Muhammadiyah's support for Amien is still very strong.

Q: Some say that Amien did make a political maneuver at the elite
level. What do you think?

A: It seems to me that Amien mistakenly thought that
as an intellectual his critics would be well received by the
government and that his criticism would improve things. He seems
to have miscalculated the government's reaction. Such open,
straightforward and sharp criticism is considered illegitimate by
the government. The government's reaction would be totally
different had the criticism been aired by, for example, Gus Dur
(chairman of Nahdlatul Ulama).

Q: What makes it different?

A: It is the way the remarks are expressed. Gus Dur usually says
it indirectly and sometimes jokingly. But the main difference is
the position of the two figures. Unlike Amien, Gus Dur is
considered outside the government circle. So, if Amien wants to
make critical remarks he is supposed to do it differently. That's
why Amien should be pushed aside for doing so.

Q: But Amien argued that he was simply practicing the Moslem
creed amar ma'ruf nahi munkar (promoting good deeds and
preventing bad deeds). Has he practiced it the wrong way?

A: The term amar ma'ruf nahi munkar has a very wide meaning.
There are also various strategies and approaches. What Amien did
was not incompatible to the supposed strategy. What he should
have done is lobby government officials and promote his ideas
from inside the system. He was not supposed to criticize the
government publicly. Indonesia, however, is a closed government.
It can't be criticized openly. Amien might have forgotten this or
he was simply trying to make it better.

Q: Some said that Amien was naive when he made critical remarks
on the Busang goldmine projects. What do you think of this?

A: It was a shallow remark. What Amien criticized was not the
technical aspect of the project but the very idea underlining the
sovereignty of the state in managing it. According to him, the
way the government handles the Busang exploration is against
Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution (which says that natural
resources are to be exploited for the maximum benefit of all the
people). Amien is not naive for having such a thought. It is
indeed the core of the problem. Thus, Amien's remark is a very
basic one. (swa)