Political Islam and today's politician

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