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.