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