The NU Muktamar and the Test of Political Ethics

Not all tests come in the form of hardship. There are times when tests arrive precisely when the path feels easier, support grows stronger, and victory seems within reach. It is at such moments that one is tested: whether they can still uphold their principles when they possess the opportunity to ignore them.

In every struggle for leadership, the greatest temptation is sometimes not defeat, but victory itself. As positions draw closer, ambition can grow faster than wisdom. As opportunities expand, methods may no longer be deemed important. All that remains is a single desire: to win.

This is where the issue of ethics begins.

The 35th Muktamar of Nahdlatul Ulama, therefore, is not merely a space to determine who will hold the mandate as Rais ’Aam and General Chairman of PBNU. It is also a space to test how a large organisation maintains itself when power is being contested.

It is not just the candidates who are being tested. It is our political ethics that are being tested.

NU is not a small organisation that exists only within meeting rooms and management structures. It lives within historical memory, networks of pesantren (Islamic boarding schools), traditions of scholarship, and the lives of millions of its members. Consequently, a change in leadership within NU always carries a significance far greater than a mere change in office.

There is trust at stake. There is the dignity of the jam‘iyyah (organisation). There is the future of a great house that must be guarded together.

Therefore, the quality of a Muktamar is not determined solely by who ultimately wins. Equally important is how that victory is achieved.

Politics and the Temptation of Victory

We do not need to pretend that the Muktamar is sterile of politics. There are candidates, there is support, there is communication, there is consolidation, and certainly, there is competition. All of this is a natural part of organisational life.

Politics, fundamentally, is not something bad. Politics becomes problematic when it loses its ethical boundaries.

In the dynamics of the 35th Muktamar, various anxieties have emerged regarding the possibility of conditioning, pressure, and transactional approaches. There has also been a movement by Nahdliyin members using the name “KPK NU”, which can be read as an expression of moral anxiety to ensure the Muktamar process does not lose its honour.

The message is simple: NU is too large to determine its future based on material measures.

However, anxiety must not transform into judgement. Allegations are not facts. Suspicion is not evidence. In an atmosphere of heated contestation, information often moves faster than our ability to verify its truth.

Therefore, a critical attitude must go hand in hand with fairness.

If there are allegations of violations, they must be investigated. If information is unclear, it must be verified. If violations are proven, they must be resolved through a fair and accountable mechanism.

We must not turn a blind eye to problems, but we must also not lose our sense of justice when facing them.

In the Islamic tradition, such an attitude is close to the spirit of muhāsabah jamā‘iyyah (collective introspection). A large organisation is not one that is devoid of problems. A large organisation is one that has the courage to see its problems, acknowledge them, and rectify them.

Preserving dignity does not mean hiding problems. Sometimes, dignity is preserved through the courage to perform corrections.

Between Legality and Legitimacy

In social science, Max Weber reminded us of the importance of legitimacy in power. Power is not enough if obtained merely through legal procedures; it also requires acceptance and trust from those who are led.

In the context of the Muktamar, votes can be counted. Rules can be followed. Decisions can be finalised. Formally, all processes may proceed according to the regulations.

However, trust is not born simply because procedures have been completed.

A leader may be organisationally legal, but their moral legitimacy will still be influenced by how they attained that leadership. Was the process conducted honestly? Did the participants have the freedom to determine their choice? Were differences respected? Was the space for deliberation open to all parties?

These questions are vital because leadership requires not only legality but also legitimacy.

Legality provides the basis for someone to hold office. Legitimacy provides the moral strength so that the leadership is trusted.

NU needs both.

A leader elected without trust may be able to run the organisation administratively. However, it will be difficult to build unity if, from the very beginning, their leadership is shadowed by suspicion.

Therefore, the best victory is not merely a legal victory, but a victory that is also trusted.

Deliberation and Free Space

This is where Jürgen Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy becomes relevant. According to Habermas, the legitimacy of a decision is determined not only by its outcome but also by the quality of the communicative process that produces it.

His theoretical language may sound academic. However, his idea is simple: a decision is more easily accepted if it arises from a process that provides space for people to speak, to disagree, and to determine their choice without undue pressure.

This idea is not far from the spirit of musyawarah (deliberation) in Islam.

Musyawarah is not merely gathering, speaking, and deciding who wins. Musyawarah is a process of bringing differences together to find the best path for the common interest.

Therefore, musyawarah requires freedom.

People may persuade others, but they must not coerce. People may build support, but they must not intimidate. People may consolidate, but they must not trade votes.