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.