High time now for more substantive politics

High time now for more substantive politics

Muhamad Ali, Lecturer, State Islamic University,
Sharif Hidayatullah, Jakarta

Elections are coming soon, both in the U.S. and in Indonesia.
The relationship between religion and politics remains a crucial
issue in both countries. In the last U.S. election, the
politicians and the public debated over whether or not political
parties should be allowed to use religious rhetoric. Many people
said George W. Bush purposely used religious idioms. This year,
several other crucial issues with religious implications will be
discussed, most notably gay (same-sex, ed.) marriage.

According to a survey in June-July 2003, 62 percent of the
U.S. citizens agreed with Bush on his open expression of his
religious beliefs and 58 percent believed that Bush relied on
religion in decision-making. However, religious references in
speeches and political decision-making have made U.S. citizens
uncomfortable. Bush has also been regarded as endangering
American secularism. Religion should not enter the realm of
politics.

The result of the U.S. survey above is similar to that of
Indonesia Survey Institute (LSI) that was conducted in August
2003. Of 2,240 respondents, categorized into "pious" Muslims and
"secular" Muslims, 51 percent of "pious" Muslim voters will chose
"nationalist" political parties, while 21.4 percent of them will
choose "Islamic" parties. The results can be examined critically
from different points of view, but it seems that more and more
voters have become less concerned with religion in choosing
political parties. It is more likely that the majority will still
choose democratic, pluralistic parties, rather than religion-
based parties.

Formally, the U.S. maintains a liberal democracy. Liberal
democracy is a governance philosophy and model that emphasizes
individual rights and liberty, equality, mutual respect and
tolerance. Liberal democracy combines individual liberty with
majority practices through representative governance.

At present, the percent of non-Christians in the U.S. is
increasing. Of 281 million U.S. citizens, 5.5 million are
Muslims, 1.9 million are Buddhists, and 1.3 are Hindu. Millions
of others are committed to other religions and faiths,
agnosticism or atheism. This diversity of U.S. citizens has
become an increasingly important context of the debate over
religion and politics.

The role of religion has been as controversial in the U.S. as
in other countries. During the last general election campaign, a
heated debate over religious liberties and religious rights of
minorities occurred, especially regarding the U.S. Supreme Court
adjudication on Oregon versus Smith case.

That debate indicates that even in a secular country like the
U.S., tension prevails where religion and politics mix.

Such debate in the U.S. centers on whether religion spoils or,
on the contrary, fosters liberal democracy. The answer to such a
question depends on the historical context. There were two main
viewpoints, as Mary C. Segers (2003) wrote. One group considers
religion as a source of political damage. The rivalry amongst
various churches could bring about sectarian disputes. Religion
also threatens the political discussion process since religious
activities tend to be intolerant and have no respect for
fundamental rights of various religious and non-religious
adherents.

According to these minimalists, religion undermines
fundamental rights of democratic citizenship through its call for
divine authority. Moreover, politics inherently jeopardizes
religion. The church's involvement in politics presents the
danger of political fetishism or legitimizing the given political
structures in religious idioms. According to this group,
therefore, the state must not develop religious expression in
politics.

On the other hand, apologists argue that not only religion
coexists with democracy, it could foster democratic rule.
Religion enhances the U.S.' democracy in three ways. First,
religion has positive effects on the broadening of political
representation -- something that democrats have to admit and
respect. Second, religion enhances democratic citizenship by
educating citizens on political and civic skills that are
indispensable for effective participation. Third, religion
disseminates moral values that democracy needs. Churches,
mosques, synagogues and temples may serve as hubs where such
values are disseminated, and function as a barricade for social
and/or political tyranny.

The two strands above provide two different positions. The
reality is more complicated than just those two. In fact, not all
Americans agree that the separation of church and state should
mean a total divorce between religion and politics. Separating
government agencies from religious institutions should not
necessarily mean that citizens are prohibited from using their
moral beliefs in public policy debates. For many, religious and
political relations in the U.S. are not necessarily a black and
white issue.

What about Indonesia? Religion in politics is also a subject
of debate, although the prevailing background and issues are
often different from those in other countries. The two groups of
minimalists and apologists as in the U.S. can also be found in
Indonesia. The debate has often been rhetorical, symbolist or
destructive rather than substantive and constructive. Religion
serves as merely a cover and an attraction to bring in masses of
supporters, while neglecting such values as human rights,
democracy, peace, transparency and justice.

Some political parties still use religious symbols, names,
idioms and texts in a somewhat artificial manner, as if those
symbols only support the given political position. Religious
absolutism is emphasized so much that only a divine concept
according one's party is the truest, while other parties'
religious concepts are said to be wrong.

Of 24 political parties, the names of political parties refer
to inclusive and substantive values such as patriotism,
nationalism, justice, welfare and unity. But problems often arise
when campaigning begins, when political debate is ratcheted up to
a high level of intensity. Experiences from previous campaigns
showed how the religious card is played in one way or another to
attract the masses from a certain religion or religious
organization, and often manipulated to discredit other political
parties.

Religious rhetoric is believed to be effective in attracting
the masses, not only in Indonesia but also in the U.S., and it is
likely that political actors in both countries will use it.
Nonetheless, the risk is all the same: If a sectarian,
superficial, hypocrite and empty politics become the major
concern, then the concrete, inclusive programs become neglected,
whereas corruption, backwardness, violence, ignorance and other
human and social problems become the lowest priority.

The time is coming for politicians to promote more substantive
politics. That means politics that emphasize universal values,
tolerance and practical programs to benefit as many groups as
possible. Substantive politics also means politics without dirty
money politics, without corruption and without violence.

With substantive politics, substantive values such as
equality, justice, welfare, clean living, security, social
solidarity and the like are emphasized, and concrete programs for
society at large are promoted. With substantive politics,
political competition will be healthier, more productive and
better able to serve the greatest number in society.

This article first appeared online at www.gusdur.net