Searching for an antidote to politicization of religion

Searching for an antidote to politicization of religion

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Why have we suddenly become so prone to
violence? Why do we seem to have lost our sense of religiosity
and do things that are clearly against the spirit of religion?

These were the main questions asked and explored during a
recent discussion about religion and politics. The meeting was
initiated by the Agency for Research and Development and the
Ministry of Religious Affairs following the latest spate of mob
violence smacking of religious conflict that took place in
Jakarta (the "Ketapang affair"), Kupang and Ujungpandang.

The meeting was meant to find out whether these three
incidents were expressions of narrow religious fanaticism or the
result of political manipulation. Against this backdrop the
participants were primarily leaders from the five religions
officially recognized by the state: Islam, Catholicism,
Protestantism, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

It was clear that everyone at the meeting was convinced that
the three incidents were the product of political manipulation.
They were equally convinced that the perpetrators had easy access
to the current power system.

Two participants, one a Muslim leader and the other a Catholic
priest, related to the meeting how frantically they worked
together during the crisis days to limit the spread of the
violence. They operated jointly from a crisis center in Jakarta,
and when the situation exploded in Kupang they alerted their
respective communities in Ujungpandang that during the next two
days what happened in Kupang might spread to Ujungpandang.

It was through this kind of effort that in Ujungpandang the
extent of fighting and physical damage was minimized.
A number of things became apparent through this kind of report.

First, all the violence started as an insignificant local
conflict which, after it calmed down, was reactivated and
magnified by external elements in a systematic way. Second, the
group exploiting the dormant local jealousies, inherited
prejudices, and inciting anger among the masses was a mobile
group moving from one locality to another. It seemed to be well
informed about the seeds of violence that exist in every local
community. Third, mass violence that caused extensive damage was
always started by a group coming from outside riding on
motorcycles, acting in a very efficient and "professional" way,
and then disappearing into nowhere when the chaos moved into high
gear.

What do we infer from this kind of evidence?

It is that there are well-organized groups in the country
which are always ready and keen to create chaos out of every bit
of local tension. For what purpose?

Of course no one knows except those belonging to the most
inner circle of such groups. The public can only make guesses.
And the participants in this meeting guessed that there must be
short-term and long-term purposes, and that the ultimate game is
about political power, the right to govern this country.

Against such a background, no matter how ardently religious
leaders appeal to their followers to be tolerant, humane and use
reason, such voices have always been drowned by the thunderous
voice of evil inciting anger and "vengeance".

In every instance religious language using idioms of politics
and violence has thus far always defeated religious language
advocating reason and humanity. Why? Because politics and
violence promise power, while reason and humanity promise only
decency.

To those harboring political ambitions, power is tangible and
sweet, while decency is intangible and tasteless, and humanity is
merely an abstraction.

At one point the discussion touched upon the problem of
religious tolerance and peaceful co-existence among followers of
different religions. Two conclusions emerged in this regard.
First, at the top and at the bottom there is actually no problem
in this regard. Religious leaders at the top can work together,
they can communicate with each other, and they don't fight
against one another even when they are facing serious prob.

At the bottom, among the apolitical masses, the situation is
the same. In religiously pluralistic communities, followers of
different faiths observe their respective religious duties
without any interference from followers of other religions.

It is thus the religion factor at the middle level, among the
politically more conscious and more ambitious masses, that
political provocation and manipulation prove to be most
dangerous.

Second, in all instances it has always been Muslims and
Christians who have been played off against one another.
Indonesian Hindus were involved only in one political dispute,
viz. when one Muslim politician declared that no Hindu could
become president of this country. One Buddhist participant stated
that Indonesian Buddhists were politically colorless, and that
therefore they did not pose any threat to any political group in
the country. They are thus not dangerous politically.

In a sense this is a very favorable situation, because
Indonesian Buddhists can make important political suggestions
without others becoming suspicious. Conscious of this fact, one
Buddhist participant stated that Indonesian Muslims as the
biggest religious group in this country play a very decisive role
in this national effort to end mass violence. It is Islamic
political leaders who should be at the vanguard of confronting
attempts to politicize of religion. If they fail to do so, it
will be just impossible to stop this well-orchestrated craze
toward mass violence.

The participants agreed that the most effective way to avert
any further threat toward religious violence is to stop it at the
local community level. It is thus local religious leaders, and
not the national ones, who can really stop political provocateurs
from creating this very dangerous chaos. This means that
increasing the political vigilance of local religious leaders
becomes a very urgent issue.

The question is, will the Ministry of Religious Affairs take
the lead in this regard?

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.