Mutual trust key to democracy

By Aleksius Jemadu

BANDUNG (JP): People need maturity and humbleness to accept the bitter reality of being a loser in any kind of competition with fellow humans. In a sense, the general election was a form of social marketing in which political parties and politicians tried to persuade the electorate to "buy" their ideas and programs. Campaign activities, including television ads, were designed to attract people's attention and win their votes.

If political parties or groups failed to reach their vote targets, there were two possible reasons. First, they were too ambitious or self-confident. There was a big gap between their expectations and the capacity to attain their goals. Second, people were simply not interested in their ideas or slogans and therefore decided to join other political parties which were more attractive. Politicians can never blame the electorate for not supporting them in elections. If they are politically mature, they can only blame themselves and then make improvements to perform better next time.

Although many political analysts predicted the victory of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), people wonder why such a victory coincided with a poor performance by Islamic parties.

Is there any causal relationship between the two phenomena?

It should be noted that just one day before the elections, the Indonesian Council of Ulemas (MUI) issued a fatwa (religious verdict) urging Indonesian Muslims to choose Islamic parties. The fatwa was bolstered by a nationwide television advertisement with the same message. As it turned out, the performance of pluralistic and secularist parties such as PDI Perjuangan, the National Awakening Party (PKB) and the National Mandate Party (PAN) remained unharmed and was even better than what many people expected.

Whatever the reason behind the victory of PDI Perjuangan, it is undeniable that the majority of its voters are also Muslims. Christians and other non-Muslims are just a minority group in this party. Take, for instance, the election outcome in West Java. Millions of PDI Perjuangan supporters in this province are Muslims. People from other religions here number perhaps less than 1 percent. But let us not forget that for members of such a cosmopolitan and nationalist party, religious affiliation does not really matter.

Even if the number of non-Muslim PDI Perjuangan legislative candidates is considerable, it would be unwise for the party to neglect the aspirations and interests of the Muslim population. Leaders of the party do not need to be told or dictated by other people to take into account the interests of the majority of the people. Then again, establishing a sharp dichotomy between Muslims and non-Muslims in this era of reform could become a serious hindrance, not only for national unity but also for democracy itself. Indonesians need to have a common ideological platform on which a strong and modern nation-state can be based.

It is true that due to the diversity of the ideological orientations of the political parties these elections are going to create new divisions in our society, along religious, race and ethnicity lines. Unfortunately, competition among political parties during the campaign period tended to strengthen such divisive forces. The question is: can the process of democratization occur at the same time as the development of these growing divisive forces? Can Indonesia progress to an egalitarian civil society if some social groups are deeply embedded in attitudes of self-righteousness?

During the period of the New Order government, tension among religious groups, especially between Muslims and Christians, was encouraged by the fact that the government used the friction to perpetuate its domination. For instance, in the 1970s and 1980s the government tended to favor Christians at the expense of Muslims. Christians held key positions in the Cabinet. Many government policies were insensitive to Islamic beliefs.

In the 1990s, Soeharto's New Order changed its mind. It began to embrace Islamic groups. But again, the aim was to strengthen its own position. Thus, it never had an everlasting honeymoon with any religious group, because favors were considered from one-sided political calculations. The implication of this "divide and rule" policy was tremendous. Indonesians were led to think and behave in terms of religious suspicion and hatred.

Curiously enough, at the grassroots level the existing pattern of voting behavior goes against religious lines of division. Had the pattern of voting behavior been based on religious divisions, a secularist PDI Perjuangan would not have gained such a leading position in the vote tally. This is indeed impressive social capital for the future of a civil society and a democratic state. There is no social or political group which is too small to be neglected in Indonesian politics, let alone ignoring or alienating the big groups. Big and small groups should cooperate and strengthen each other to build a just and prosperous Indonesia.

Religious sentiments release a huge amount of energy in modern politics. They can be used or mobilized for positive as well as negative purposes. Let our moral conscience guide us to choose the positive ones. Such choices would surely benefit us all as a nation.

The writer is a lecturer in the Department of International Relations at the Catholic University of Parahyangan Bandung.