Welcoming the Muktamar, Saving NU
The President has noted that Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) is always present during every event and crisis faced by the nation.
The highest forum of the largest mass organisation in Indonesia, and indeed the world, Nahdlatul Ulama, is scheduled to be held from 27–31 August 2026. One of the key agendas is the election of the Rais Am and the General Chairman of the Nahdlarul Ulama Executive Board (PBNU). Interestingly, this Muktamar is preceded by somewhat tense dynamics, including issues regarding organisational governance reforms and the decision by the Rais Am to dismiss the General Chairman. This writing does not focus on the details of those dynamics, but rather attempts to examine them from the perspective of the election mechanism and its impact on NU.
Since 1999, various important decisions at the Muktamar, particularly the election of the General Chairman, have utilised a voting mechanism. This marked a new chapter for the traditional NU organisation, which previously relied more on charisma and deliberation (musyawarah). Voting does not actually eliminate the aspect of deliberation. However, from 1999 to the present, voting has become almost the sole mechanism used when deliberation fails to reach a consensus. The increasing number of participants, the complexity of interests, and the demands of democratisation appear to be the reasons behind this change.
In my view, the voting mechanism somewhat erodes the traditional aspects that characterise NU. The NU tradition, which was previously rich in aspects of deliberation, tabayun (verification), bahtsul masail (legal discussions), tawassuth (moderation), and seeking the common good, is beginning to erode. The orientation of elections has shifted from seeking the best leader (based on NU standards) to winning a specific candidate. I do not wish to say that voting is un-Islamic, but I believe it is less appropriate for an organisation with a traditional character like NU. The voting mechanism allows various interests to enter, which ultimately leads to various internal conflicts.
In truth, NU is not merely a mass organisation. The word ‘ulama’ in Nahdlatul Ulama (the Awakening of the Ulama) implies a group of people possessing a tradition of Islamic scholarship. Historically, the tradition living within the pesantren (Islamic boarding schools), which serves as the base of NU, was not based on voting. Processes such as bahtsul masail, the determination of the start of Ramadan, and the determination of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) were all conducted through argumentation, testing evidence, listening to the opinions of seniors, and seeking a common ground (ijma). It was very rare, if not unheard of, for decisions to be made via voting during its early growth.
Voting erodes charisma, which is one of NU’s primary characteristics. Many people consider charisma to be synonymous with anti-democracy. However, in the NU tradition, charisma is born from a lineage of knowledge (sanad), character (akhlak), service, and social recognition. In Pierre Bourdieu’s terms, such charisma is categorised as symbolic capital. Kyais are respected not because they are elected, but because they have obtained moral legitimacy. Voting is slowly shifting symbolic capital into political capital. What determines leadership is no longer the depth of knowledge, but the ability to build support.
In the theory of deliberative democracy, Jürgen Habermas distinguishes between communicative rationality and strategic rationality. NU’s deliberation in the past was closer to communicative rationality; the principle was mutual listening, testing arguments, and finding common ground. On the other hand, voting is closer to strategic rationality, involving coalition building, counting votes, lobbying voters, and ultimately winning the contest. This mechanism shifts the focus away from charismatic aspects, depth of knowledge, and leadership suitability, towards an orientation of obtaining the most votes through various means.
Furthermore, the voting mechanism also opens the door to transactional politics. Electoral systems always carry the potential for the commercialisation of votes. James Buchanan, in public choice theory, states that institutional design influences the behaviour of its actors. If votes determine victory, then votes acquire economic and political value.
NU, as the largest Islamic organisation in Indonesia and the world, is certainly attractive to practical political actors looking to participate. This condition is even more relevant within the context of Indonesian politics, which employs a direct election system (one man, one vote). In such a configuration, mass organisations with the largest bases will always become arenas contested by various political actors. NU, with tens of millions of members and a network of pesantren spread across Indonesia, possesses extremely high strategic value.
When the election mechanism within the organisation relies increasingly on voting, the entry point for practical political interests becomes wider. The closeness of some NU elites to the circles of power, the involvement of its figures in various strategic state positions, and the connection between NU and strategic government programmes show that the boundary between the religious sphere (ummat) and the political sphere is becoming thinner. This closeness is not always wrong, as the state and mass organisations indeed need to synergise. However, when the critical distance begins to disappear, the moral independence of NU as the guardian of the people’s conscience is also at stake.
Therefore, maintaining the dignity of NU is not enough by merely choosing the right figure, but also by rebuilding a mechanism that aligns with its identity. Deliberation needs to be restored as the primary instrument for decision-making, while voting should only serve as a last resort when all efforts to reach a consensus have truly reached a dead end.
The charisma of the Kyai, a hallmark of NU, needs to be nurtured. It should be understood not as a form of feudalism, but as a moral authority born from a lineage of knowledge, integrity, exemplary character, and long-standing service to the people. Thus, the greatest strength of NU lies not in the number of votes collected, but in the moral authority capable of uniting.