Religion and politics an uneasy combination

Religion and politics an uneasy combination

By Th. Sumartana

SALATIGA, Central Java (JP): Each time people speak about
religion in relation to politics, many people instantaneously
begin to feel uneasy. Why? What is so wrong with the combination
of the two? Isn't religion a universal concept? Why, then, does
religion, which represents humanity, lose its universality the
moment it is used as a political ideology?

It is undeniable that each time a political ideology is formed
in the interest of a particular religion, it becomes a very
powerful political machine. However, its very nature as a
messenger of absolute truth becomes the biggest constraint in
carrying out its political mission. The reason is, political
reality is a complex phenomenon and necessitates certain
compromises. Usually, religion does not compromise.

However, in many cases coalition between religion and politics
cannot be avoided. Their combination is the meeting point of the
transcendental side while it is reality that must be changed and
improved. The new reality is not always the ideal. Worse still,
it can bring about confusing realities that destroy ideals.

Political recruitment by religious-based movements is very
easy, particularly during times when religion is viewed as a
powerful integrative force in society. However, as individual
religions challenge each other with differing political ideas and
objectives, we begin to lose the common ground for constructing a
shared community. In its worst form, this can turn into a real
disintegrative force within society.

The transcendental values of religion often lose their
supernatural characteristics and can even become vulgar when used
as a mechanism of political struggle. The history of Christian
Europe demonstrates how politics and religion can turn a
religious party into a force that shuns truth and justice.

Politics should be more firmly based on humanity. As long as
humanity is included in a particular religion, then it can be
used as the basis for political thinking and practice. On the
other hand, the moment a political force rides on the absolutism
of religion, it creates only suffering. Politics becomes absolute
and religion relative.

This certainly creates a dilemma for both. Only through open
discussion between proponents of various beliefs can we arrive at
a political form that is based on morals and ethics. However, its
manifestation should be a true consensus based on an open
political discourse.

Julius Nyerere, a former president of Tanzania, once talked
about the relation between religion and the society. He made
three important points: First, the only objective of development
was the people and their need to earn a decent living. Anything
that stood in the way should become the enemy of every religion;
Second, all religions should position their political praxis on
an equal level, particularly when facing common problems; Third,
all religions should work towards development for everybody.

He underscored the fact that no single religion on earth had a
monopoly on virtue, although everybody had to fight for the
ideals that they believe to be the truth. Truth doesn't change
simply because somebody belonging to a different religion
questions it. Nyerere said, "What right have we to presume the
God Almighty takes no notice of those who give dedicated service
to those millions of His children who hunger and thirst after
justice, just because they do not do it in His name?"

The proliferation of religious-based organizations in the last
few years has revealed the need for us to mull over this issue
since, as we all know, the issues surrounding the relation
between religion and politics can in fact become an agenda for
productive discussions among these intellectuals. On the other
hand, these organizations can be counter-productive as they move
into the political world in an effort to find justification for
their respective roles, which they program without any prior
dialog with other organizations.

These groups have turned into parties -- groups that seek to
differentiate themselves from each other more than anything else.
The stories about religious-based political parties during
Indonesian political history will repeat themselves in exactly
the same pattern. The difficulty of learning from past failures
was obvious during the meeting between intellectual organizations
some time ago. Stalemates occurred simply because religious words
and terminology were used that were perceived as carrying
political connotations, while political jargon was, perceived as
furthering religious concepts, was flung around. The meeting was
initiated on suspicion and ended in disappointment.

Going back to the issue of religion and politics, perhaps we
should remind ourselves once more of Julius Nyerere's wise words;
what matters most in (political) development is human beings as
human beings. The question should be, in what way can religion
contribute to the creation of a conducive atmosphere so that all
people can live a decent life? The role of a particular religion
in development will be reflected by the quality of its
contribution -- both in thought and practice -- to help human
beings be human beings. The only way to achieve this is through
dialog and cooperation among existing religions.

The writer teaches in the postgraduate studies department at
the Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga.