Political Islam and today's politician

Santi W.E. Soekanto, Jakarta

Which Indonesian Muslim figure could be more political than former president and former Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) chairman Abdrrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid? As senior journalist Rosihan Anwar said recently: "Gus Dur is the embodiment of Political Islam." "He in essence has never been separated from politics."

For that matter, neither has NU ever distanced itself from politics despite countless assertions of upholding its 1926 khittah of being a socio-cultural organization, and despite analysts' praises that NU (as opposed to Muhammadiyah) is "the most militant defender" of the separation between religion and state.

Gus Dur may be dubbed the champion of cultural and religious pluralism, but never would he deserve an award for furthering the cause of a "non-political Islam" given his record as being among the most politicized cleric Indonesia has ever had.

Any psychologist worth their salt would be able to tell that cognitive dissonance causes discomfort that could lead to stress or worse, so one has to cope by various means including rearranging one's cognizance of a subject. If one is unsettled by the way most politically active Muslim figures bend over backward trying to win political power while blasting "political Islam", then perhaps one needs a new understanding of the subject.

For starters, what defines Political Islam? One writer says, "Since all our activities in the power perspective, within a community, society or a club, or within a state and beyond at the inter-state level, is "political" (then) whatever Muslims do in power perspective within a clan, village or community by citing Islam as the source and sanction behind such activities is Political Islam.

But political expression is not exclusive to Muslims. So surely there must also be Political Christianity? Political Buddhism and others?

Presumably, because the latter groups have yet to be classified thus, their potential for furthering or corroding the unity of a nation then has yet to be identified. Whether or not identification will be made, may well depend on who prevails in the power struggle.

What is clear at present is that the prevailing image of Political Islam is one of a sneaky, malicious party ready to pounce at a community already bogged down by desperation. For instance, when meeting presidential frontrunner Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono this month, Gus Dur expressed concern about the use of religion to grab power. He said, "The politicization of Islam (is) a dangerous development (as) it has the potential to stir unrest and threaten national unity," to which Susilo agreed by adding that "the most dangerous thing is sectarianism."

Samuel Moore writing on Indonesia Alert! (www.indonesiaalert.org) puts it this way: "The danger at present is that Indonesia is democratic (somewhat) but hopelessly bankrupt. The groups of political Islam are poised to profit from the country's desperation."

Who stands to gain from Indonesia being on the brink of disaster? The Political Islamic faction, Moore said, pointing at how the only parties opposing neo-liberalism (in the form of campaigns for privatization, export-led growth and import liberalization) in the House of Representatives are Islamic ones. He pointed out how for that faction's stand against corruption and the dictates of international capital, the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) stands to gain many more seats in the election.

But PKS is no more political than the NU-affiliated National Awakening Party (PKB), the United Development Party (PPP), or Crescent Star Party (PBB).

In the current state of politics in the country, Islam is a tool like other political expressions such as nationalism, to be used and discarded easily when they suit one's interests. Figures such as Gus Dur, Hasyim Muzadi, Hamzah Haz or Jusuf Kalla gamely made use of religious symbols to further their political aims despite professing their abhorrence toward any organized attempt to establish a sharia state.

Megawati resorted to the same ploy and consented to the use of the unbelievably lame excuse that she and her running mate Hasyim Muzadi would solve the decades-old tension between "the Muslim and the Nationalist" elements that make up the nation.

When Jusuf Kalla claimed last week to have won the support of the PKS, what came to the fore was that somehow political convenience has taken precedence over huge issues such as the Islamic sharia and transparency. Susilo stands against an Islamic state for Indonesia, while PKS leaders have clearly stated their wish to someday see -- "when the Indonesian people are ready" -- the introduction of sharia as the basis of the nation's life.

The Susilo-Kalla ticket still has much to explain about the sources of their campaign funds (there have been questions about the names of donors that have been revealed, not to say anything about unlisted contributors), while PKS officials at one point or another have boasted of their "clean, anti-corruption party."

Should this unlikely alliance really take place, the huge gap over the sharia and transparency could be bridged because both sides could gain considerably; Kalla wanted the support of the members of PKS (who won more than 7 percent of the vote in the April election) while PKS can no longer tolerate a Megawati presidency.

For the sake of political convenience, politicians go to hajj or umrah (minor) pilgrim, don the headscarf, and go dewy-eyed in prayers led by renowned Islamic teacher Arifin Ilham. However, when being seen Islamic is no longer convenient; for instance, in the face of the foreign powers' pressure to bear down on certain Islamist groups, or if the Islamist groups in question fail to support their political quest; these same figures will just as quickly distance themselves from groups of political Islam.

Rather than getting bogged down in the discussion on Political Islam, however, maybe what Indonesia needs is take to the moral high ground and get a new perspective. What is needed is not the continual abuse of something you cannot do anything about (such as one's faith), but a new rule of the game, perhaps? Or the same rule of the game, but to be respected and honored by everybody concerned, this time around?

Take corruption, for instance. For some people, they cannot help being a Muslim or a Christian, but they can surely guard themselves against committing corruption. Why then, is the anticorruption drive the political backbone of the PKS alone? Should it not be, instead, a race and a rallying point for all political parties, leaving the people to be the judge as to their sincerity in combating corruption?

But then again, perhaps the anticorruption drive will prove to be a non-starter as far as most of the current political players are concerned; Islamic or otherwise.

The writer is a freelance journalist in Jakarta and can be contacted at santi_soekanto2001@yahoo.com