Islam: In search of a civil society

Imam Cahyono, Contributor, Purworkerto, Central Java

Islam & Civil Society -- Pandangan Muslim Indonesia (Views of Indonesian Muslims); By Hendro Prasetyo, Ali Munhanif et al; Gramedia, Jakarta 2002

Traditionalist Islam and modernist Islam: Debates about the two have always drawn attention because they are multidimensional in nature, covering a wide range of issues, from theology, culture and education to political practices.

Traditionalism and modernism are often linked to rural culture and urban culture respectively. The country's largest Muslim organization, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), is assumed to represent the former, while Muhammadiyah is regarded as representative of modernist Islam.

In the course of history, the relationship between the two camps has often been defined by either cooperation or confrontation. Discussions on NU and Muhammadiyah always involve hope along with enduring concern as the relationship between the two groups is imbued with a delicate emotional nature from past history.

Competition between the two groups is multidimensional, covering not only political aspects, but also various other issues, including matters pertaining to the meaning and development of civil society in Indonesia.

This book explains in detail the meaning of civil society based on the traditionalist Muslim paradigm and modernist Muslim paradigm. Arguments about the two groups are clear, supported by empirical field studies involving prominent figures from a number of well-known organizations.

Particularly noteworthy is that the comprehension of civil society shows the diversity that is in a state of constant development. As a social concept that emerged in the 18th century, civil society is open to various developments, connotations and interpretations, as theories of civil society develop and change.

Debates about civil society are mostly triggered by the difference in theoretical perspectives and the ability to place them in a historical context within a particular society.

The difference between the traditionalist and the modernist in defining civil society, which is found in the motivations and approaches that are used, will eventually influence strategy. The final result will probably be the durability of each civil society construction.

The political constellation between Islam and the government (read: the state), which has existed since Sukarno's government, with the disbandment of the Masyumi political party, has caused the modernist to seek a new theological foundation to participate in development during the New Order era.

The motivation for finding accommodation in the New Order's process of development has prompted modernists to develop a civil society based on the Hegelian approach, with emphasis on complementary and supplementary functions. Civil society or buergerliche gesselschaft is a social institution that is present between families and the state, and used by citizens to fulfill the interests of individuals and groups.

Thus, civil society plays a part in the state's functions. Muhammadiyah has since the beginning developed the educational sector intensively, the social sector and the health service sector. Moreover, civil society also emphasizes the importance of the middle class as this group is more or less dependent on the state. As is the case with most third world countries, the state plays a crucial role in all sectors of the nation.

Alexis de Toqueville sharply criticized the Hegelian approach adopted by modernist Muslims, because Hegel regarded the position of a state as the ultimate standard. Dependence on the state will cause civil society to lose its political dimension, making it unable to provide checks and balances for the nation's leadership and leaving it susceptible to state manipulation and intervention.

The Toquevillian approach NU has adopted puts emphasis on the function of civil society to counterbalance the state and control the state interventionist power by strengthening independent organizations in society.

NU has applied this approach because in the first two decades of the New Order government, it was not properly involved in the political process and its articulation. Such political marginalization occurred as the New Order regime accommodated only modernists, who supported modernization and had carried out Islamic political innovation.

At the end of the 1980s, NU focused its activities on the creation of free public spheres, fostering open and free communication, advocacy for the less empowered members of society and the empowerment of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). NU believed that civil society could be built provided that the society as a whole was self-reliant and free from state cooptation and intervention.

The difference in construction and approach is reflected in the use of the term civil society itself. The traditionalist group has translated civil society into masyarakat sipil, but the modernist group has used the term masyarakat madani. The difference of translation has a close link with the socio- political experience and the religious thought of each group.

Traditionalists have used the democratization strategy from the bottom up and modernists from the top down. Basically, the difference shifts to reach a meeting point, that is the creation of a just and prosperous society, with social justice as well as just and civilized humanity as its pillars.

The result of studies contained in this book indicates that community leaders are aware of the need to develop civil society in the Indonesian Muslim community. This constitutes a challenge but also shows the potential for the development of civil society in the country.

In the creation of civil society, it is necessary to understand and comprehend the meaning of this term first. This book is therefore worth reading, amid the scarcity of information about civil society among our people.

The reviewer is the coordinator of the Forum of Strategic Islamic Studies, and former chief editor of LPM Sketsa at University Jenderal Soedirman in Purwokerto.