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)