Nurturing the Pulse of Philanthropy within the Framework of Constitutional Government
The recent statement by the Minister of Religion proposing centralised state management of zakat, referencing practices from the prophetic era, along with plans to establish the Lembaga Pengelola Dana Umat (LPDU) to integrate Islamic philanthropy management (zakat, infaq, sadaqah, waqaf, and other religious social funds) in Indonesia has sparked profound discourse.
The aspiration to make Islamic philanthropy more effective is certainly worthy of appreciation. However, drawing a straight line from classical governance practices to the structure of modern Indonesia requires considerable sociological and juridical precision.
We must pause and reflect deeply. Are we discussing a transformation of worship, or are we witnessing an attempt by the state to commodify the faith of its citizens?
Constitution and the Essence of Constitutional Government
The most fundamental foundation we must acknowledge together is Article 1, Paragraph 3 of the 1945 Constitution, which clearly states that Indonesia is a constitutional state. This assertion is not merely formal language, but a social contract that all exercises of power must submit to legally agreed-upon corridors, not merely the wishes of authority.
Within the framework of constitutional government, the state is not the sole arbiter of religious truth or practice, but rather the protector of each citizen’s right to practise their faith.
Zakat in Islam certainly has a social dimension, but it originates from a deeply personal religious obligation. When the state attempts total centralisation, there is significant risk of philosophical distortion.
Article 29, Paragraph 2 of the 1945 Constitution guarantees the freedom of every resident to worship according to their religion. In this context, the state’s role should be to facilitate the orderly and safe conduct of worship, not to monopolise its administration.
Zakat management should not be evaluated solely by the magnitude of funds collected by the state treasury, but by how comfortably and sincerely society practises its religious obligations. Reducing zakat to rigid bureaucratic procedure risks eroding the sincerity that is the soul of the religious act itself.
Imposing a prophetic-era model of management onto modern Indonesia’s state structure requires careful consideration. During the prophetic era, there was no separation between religious and political authority.
Meanwhile, in Indonesia, the state functions as a regulator and facilitator. Equating the current government’s position with singular prophetic-era authority without considering our national consensus as a constitutional state represents a logical leap that risks undermining democratic principles.
History as Our Greatest Teacher
History is our best teacher. Professor Amelia Fauziah, in her research on Islamic philanthropy in Indonesia, affirms that long before Indonesia’s independence, society independently managed zakat, infaq, and sadaqah. Civil society organisations such as Muhammadiyah, Nahdlatul Ulama, and various local waqaf institutions have served as pillars of support for the vulnerable even before the modern state existed.
For centuries, these institutions evolved into pillars of civil society. They emerged from the soil of community trust rather than bureaucratic instruction. Transferring their management to centralised state control not only risks slow, bureaucratic zakat administration, but also represents a dangerous “historical amnesia”.
Islamic philanthropy in Indonesia has grown organically from the grassroots (bottom-up), built on trust. The emotional relationship between a zakah payer (muzakki) and a trusted management institution cannot be replaced by state bureaucracy, which is often perceived as rigid and distant.
A Word of Caution
Many experts and practitioners harbour serious doubts about this centralisation proposal. Public policy observers frequently remind us that state monopolies in social matters often result in inefficiency and tangled bureaucracy.
Moreover, dependence on a single institution will stifle innovation. To date, community-managed Zakat Collection Institutions have demonstrated remarkable creativity in distributing zakat, from educational scholarships and mobile health services to nimble micro-economic empowerment programmes.
Constitutional law experts also worry about the shrinking of civic space. In a healthy democracy, state and society should share roles in a spirit of partnership.
Zakat centralisation could be regarded as excessive state intervention into the private domain and civil society autonomy. If everything is managed by the state, where is the space for community participation in building their own communities? This could weaken the critical capacity and vitality of civil society organisations that have long served as a counterbalance to state power.
The Creativity of Civil Society Movements: Transforming Aid Recipients into Aid Givers
One of the strongest arguments against centralisation is the agility and creativity demonstrated by civil society movements, or their institutionalised forms in the shape of Zakat Collection Institutions (LAZ). Unlike government bureaucracy bound by lengthy administrative procedures, LAZ possesses the capacity to implement highly specific and solution-focused innovations.
The primary vision of these institutions is not merely to distribute temporary assistance, but to achieve radical transformation: converting mustahik (zakat recipients) into muzakki (zakat payers). Economic empowerment programmes such as Desa Berdaya, interest-free capital provision for micro and small enterprises, and technical agricultural guidance demonstrate that LAZ operates with a profoundly humanistic approach.