Islam and democracy: Malaysian vs Indonesian way

Islam and democracy: Malaysian vs Indonesian way

Endy M. Bayuni, Jakarta

Because of their predominantly Malay Muslim populations,
Indonesia and Malaysia are similar in many respects, but their
paths to democracy could not be more dissimilar.
While there are limitations and shortcomings in the
democratization of both countries, they are already being touted
as two different models as other majority Muslim countries,
particularly those in the Middle East, seek to engage in
democratic reforms.

Central to this, of course, is the role that Islam plays in
politics. Indonesia and Malaysia interpret the religion, and
therefore sharia (Islamic law), differently

Participants in a roundtable discussion on Islam and
democratization in Asia in Jakarta this week politely refrained
from passing judgment on which path -- the Indonesian or
Malaysian way -- is the more desirable or even the more
"Islamic".

The Malay culture of not blowing one's own horn may partly
explain this reluctance, but a more plausible explanation is that
democracy in these two countries is largely still a work in
progress. Malaysia can claim that its approach has resulted in
the economic well-being of its people, but Indonesia can claim
that its approach is far more inclusive, and thus more
accommodating of the interests of its non-Muslim minority
population.

But that makes the study of these two countries and the model
they have chosen all the more interesting. The jury is still out,
and probably will remain so for many years, about which of the
two is superior.

The roundtable, jointly hosted by the International Center for
Islam and Pluralism (ICIP) and the Asia Foundation office in
Jakarta, is the second of its kind to be held in the region,
following the one held in September in Manila.

Besides looking at democracy building in the two Muslim
majority countries, the roundtable looked at developments in
Muslim minority countries like the Philippines and Thailand.
Muslims in these two countries differ on their leanings toward
democracy: while they have lived in flourishing democracies for
all these years, they continue to face persecution and even feel
"dispossessed". Some participants from the two
countries were skeptical as to whether democracy is really the
answer to their problems.

Nevertheless, it is now widely accepted in most Muslim
countries that the compatibility of Islam and democracy is not an
issue, virtually writing off Samuel Huntington's "Clash of
Civilizations" theory.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Hassan Wirajuda, in his keynote
address to the roundtable, said it had now become clear that
democracy was not an exclusively Western value, but a value that
belonged to all major religions in the world.

"The debate on the merits of democracy and its compatibility
with Islam is over," Hassan pronounced. "The challenge in
Indonesia today is how to make Islam and all other religions an
even more effective force for reform and democratization."

This is also essentially what makes the path toward democracy
in Indonesia different from the path taken by Malaysia.

As one participant in the conference put it, Indonesia has
taken the "accommodationist" approach while Malaysia has taken
the "hegemonistic" way.

Islam is the state religion in Malaysia, and sharia is the law
prescribed for the Muslim majority. Non-Muslims, therefore, are
subject to different laws.

In Indonesia, Islam is one of the five religions recognized by
the state. While there had been demands to turn Indonesia into an
Islamic state and to impose sharia for Muslims, the debate ended
-- for the time being at least -- when the issue was put to a
vote during the debate on constitutional amendment in 2002. The
pro-Islamic and pro-sharia proponents lost the cause through a
democratic process.

But while Islam as a political ideology has been widely
rejected by the majority Muslims in Indonesia, Islamic teachings
and values continue to play a major role in the realm of politics
in the country. It is indeed hard to state that Indonesia is a
secular state in the same breath as when we describe secular
European states. Indonesia's 1945 Constitution guarantees freedom
of religion and obliges the state to protect the rights and
practices of devotees.

In his opening remarks, Douglas Rumage, head of the Asia
Foundation office in Indonesia, underlined the role played by
mass-based Islamic organizations in the two democratic general
elections in the country since 1999 as the chief contribution of
Islam to democracy building in Indonesia.

Islam as a political ideology is only one of many ideologies
in this budding democracy. The larger share of the votes in the
1999 and 2004 elections went to nationalist political parties
like Golkar and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle.

The different paths taken by Indonesia and Malaysia are
dictated by several factors.

Their colonial history is one: the Malaysian political system
has a British Westminster feel to it, and its legal system is the
legacy of centuries of British rule. Indonesia is a republic
(against a kingdom in Malaysia), and its legal system
was established in the Dutch colonial era.

But more recent history and politics also dictate their
different paths.

Malaysian prime ministers, first Mahathir Muhammad and now
Abdullah Badawi, have been veering more and more toward Islamic
conservatism, partly to defuse the threat from the Islamic Party
of Malaysia (PAS). A Malaysian participant in the roundtable
said, however, that the debate on the role of Islam and of the
sharia in Malaysian democracy had been limited to the political
elite, leaving little room for public participation.

In Indonesia, there is no longer any debate about sharia in
the national legislature, but some regions, Aceh and several
regencies, have adopted sharia in response to demands from
Islamist parties and ulema at regional level.

Surin Pitsuwan, former Thai foreign minister, and always an
eloquent speaker on Islam in Southeast Asia, approached the issue
of democracy and Islam from a totally different perspective.

For him, it is not so much a question of the role Islam can
play in democracy as an understanding of the importance of living
in a democracy to be a good Muslim.

In a closed Islamic society, people must pray five times a day
and fast during the holy month of Ramadhan, or face punishment.
In an open society, people have choices, including to ignore
those obligations, but also the option of being a good Muslim.

"I fervently believe that to be a good Muslim, you have to be
in a democratic system," he said.