Military backgrounds, female candidates hot election topics

Military backgrounds, female candidates hot election topics

Thomas Hidya Tjaya, Jakarta

There has been much talk about who will win the presidential
election and at least two major issues have been raised regarding
the suitability of the candidates.

The first is antimilitarism. A large number of people and
several organizations have raised concerns over candidates with
military backgrounds, and urged voters not to elect them. The
candidates are Wiranto from the Golkar Party and Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono from the Democratic Party.

The second issue relates to female candidates. Several clerics
in Pasuruan, East Java, have issued an edict (fatwa) banning
women from serving as president. Since there is only one woman
candidate in this election, namely, Megawati Soekarnoputeri,
everybody knows that she is the only target of the pronouncement.

We are left wondering, are the two issues essentially the
same?

It is true, first of all, that in the end the voters have the
final say. The candidates, and their campaign teams, put in their
best efforts to woo voters -- even by using morally ambiguous
means such as money politics. The interest of voters may or may
not be aroused by the issues of antimilitarism or gender.

Indeed, at first glance, the two issues seem to be on the same
level -- and one that can be discussed through rational
argumentation. We can ask, for instance, whether it makes sense
to reject candidates with military backgrounds, or whether their
military-style leadership would manifest in their leadership of
the country. Not to mention the shadows of alleged crimes or
power abuse that hang over them.

Likewise, we can ask whether it makes sense to reject a woman
candidate for president, or, on what rationale the edict was
issued. Some people have said that the edict is discriminatory
against women. They also suggest that the edict is politically
motivated to the advantage of the male candidates.

The two issues, however, differ substantially in the sources
from which they have emerged. Most morally conscious people have
not forgotten the negative impacts of the military's place in
national politics under Soeharto. Thus, it is no surprise that
many have campaigned against candidates with military
backgrounds.

No fatwa has been issued against those candidates running for
president. Thus, the issue of antimilitarism springs forth from
the lessons of the past, as advocated by those Indonesians who
haven't experienced historical amnesia.

The banning of women presidential candidates comes from some
clerics and essentially constitutes a fatwa. The pronouncement is
considered religious for two reasons: First, because it is
supported by religious reasons, and second, because it comes from
religious leaders.

Here, religion and politics merge: Religion is generally
considered sacred and its teachings, from a divine source. Even
though a fatwa is not considered part of divine revelation, it
does concern religious matters that are important to believers.

Various explanations have been offered with regard to the
status of the edict. Mohamad Guntur Romli and H Abu Yasid have
perceived a "political aroma" in the edict (Kompas, June 8).
Ahmad Najib Burhani in The Jakarta Post (June 9) opines that the
edict is not legally binding, as people can choose the fatwa that
suits them best.

The latter explanation definitely relieves many Muslims and
would help clear their conscience should they vote for Megawati.
Not every Muslim in this country is familiar with Islamic law,
and particularly the status of the edict in it. Besides,
different clerics may offer different interpretations of it.

Nevertheless, there is a much larger issue at stake than
simply a religious pronouncement on presidential candidates,
namely, that of the use of religion in politics. Many people
suspect that the edict is not simply about abiding by a
particular religious teaching, but rather about political power.

We have heard people ask why this issue comes up only now, and
not during Megawati's term. Thus, the allegation that the
religious edict is politically motivated is not unwarranted.

If this is true, then we should regret the issuance of such an
edict. The pronouncement will eventually be detrimental both to
the religious leaders and to the religion itself. First of all,
religion is a serious matter, and people generally have high
expectations that religious leaders will show them how to live
their lives.

Instead of using religion and its values to enhance the
quality of life in society, those involved in the issuance of the
edict seem to have used it for their own limited advantage. By
making such a pronouncement, these religious leaders have put
their own credibility at risk.

Moreover, the use of religion to accomplish one's own personal
and limited political agenda will only denigrate religion itself.
Non-believers may get another reason to push religion away from
their lives by showing how hypocritical religious people can be.
For them, it is much better not to embrace any religion, and yet
have high morality, rather than to abuse it and become a
hypocrite. Here, we see the danger of abusing religion for
political purposes.

Thus, more than the antimilitary issue, a religious edict that
bans women from becoming president has ramifications of its own.
Religious leaders, therefore, should be watchful of their roles
in politics and avoid using religion as an instrument for their
own personal agenda.

The writer is a lecturer at Driyarkara School of Philosophy in
Jakarta and a graduate of Fordham University, New York.