Mutual trust key to democracy

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.