Islam vs secularism?

Islam vs secularism?

As the official election campaign period winds down to a
close, a last minute battle line has been drawn, one pitting
Islamic forces against secularist forces. A number of political
parties using Islamic symbols are now campaigning to convince
voters that the real issue in this election is Islam versus
secularism. Even the Indonesian Ulemas Council and the
Muhammadiyah have endorsed this line, calling on Muslims, who
make up about 80 percent of the Indonesian population, to vote on
Monday for Islamic parties, or those that truly represent the
religion.

This new battle line is clearly aimed at wooing voters away
from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI
Perjuangan), the election front-runner which is considered a
major secular-nationalist party. This is only the latest election
ploy designed to hurt the popularity of Megawati Soekarnoputri,
the party's chairwoman and presidential candidate. Being the
front-runner among presidential candidates, these series of
attacks against her is understandable in times of elections.

Some media are exaggerating the issue, saying that Muslims are
underrepresented in the party. Some Muslim politicians have also
warned that if PDI Perjuangan wins, Indonesia would be governed
by mostly non-Muslims in the same way it was ruled in the 1970s.

It remains to be seen how Megawati will survive what is
clearly the last card being played by certain parties to block
her path to the presidency. Megawati has survived all kinds of
harassment and intimidation, both mental and physical, in the
past. But if the past is anything to go by, her popularity could
even increase with this latest attack against her and her party.

While there is nothing wrong with drawing a new battle line in
the elections, it is sad to note that some parties which are
using Islamic symbols would stoop so low, such as by dividing the
nation along religious lines, to boost their electoral chances.
It is one thing to use religious issues in campaign platforms,
and completely another to use it to try to divide the nation.

Religion is indeed an important issue in Indonesia's elections
because it plays an important part in people's lives. Religion,
as far as its moral principles and values are concerned, is
essential and should be incorporated into politics. After all, it
was the lack, or even absence, of moral values among the nation's
leaders and politicians that led this country to its current
political and economic predicaments. Abuses of power, violations
of human rights, and corruption, collusion and nepotism could
have been stopped, prevented or at least kept in check if our
leaders had some sense of morality.

Moral values and principles, however, are not the monopoly of
Islam alone. No party, Islamic or otherwise, can claim to be more
religious, or to have higher moral standards than others. But by
drawing a battle line that pits Islam against secularism, the
parties using Islamic symbols are steering this general election
on to a very dangerous, certainly divisive course. They are
splitting the nation between what they claim to be the righteous
and the infidels. They are just one step short of declaring a
holy war. This is a dangerous course that could plunge the
country into new sectarian violence. We have already had a taste
of this in Ambon. Do we really want to take the risk and let this
happen on a large, national scale?

Fortunately, some leaders of major political parties have
shown more common sense and have refused to be distracted by this
kind of divisive politics. Amien Rais, a former Muhammadiyah
chairman who now leads the National Mandate Party (PAN), has
warned that the Islam versus secularism polemics, if allowed to
continue, could polarize the country at the expense of the reform
movement.

The nation should not lose perspective of the purpose of next
week's elections. The true battle line in the elections should
remain the one that Amien, Megawati and Abdurrahman Wahid of the
National Awakening Party (PKB) drew together at the start of the
official campaign period, one that pits reformists against status
quo forces. The real and probably the only issue in the elections
is reform versus status quo. This election should be about voting
for a party that can truly carry out reform programs,
irrespective of whether that party represents a particular
religion, or whether it is broad based.