When religion is manipulated for political ends

When religion is manipulated for political ends

Agama Rakyat Agama Penguasa, Konstruksi tentang Realitas Agama
dan Demokrasi (People's religion Ruler's Religion: A Construction
on Reality of Religion and Democracy); Zainuddin Maliki; Published
by Galang Press, Yogyakarta, 2000; 252 pp.

JAKARTA (JP): Religion and power (read: state) always
stimulate interesting discussion now that Indonesia is going
through a transitional phase from authoritarianism to democracy.

Many former leaders of religious groups are currently leaders
of key government institutions.

For example, President Abdurrahman Wahid once chaired the
country's largest Muslim organization Nahdlatul Ulama (NU);
People's Consultative Assembly Speaker Amien Rais was a former
chief of Indonesia's second largest Muslim Organization
Muhammadiyah, while House of Representatives Speaker Akbar
Tandjung was a former chairman of the Islamic Students
Association (HMI).

But many argue that in fact they are not representatives of
Islam because associating them with religion undermines the noble
value of Islam.

It is commonly believed that using religion to serve political
interests is unhealthy; tainting the religion and blemishing the
image of believers.

The author of the book, Zainuddin Maliki, seems to believe
that many political leaders have been manipulating religion for
their political interests.

Zainuddin tries to explain how religion and the state is
interrelated by presenting some political and social concepts and
theories.

He discusses theories created by thinkers such as Karl Marx,
Anthonio Gramsci and Robert N. Bellah to explain current issues
related to religion and state.

Zainuddin argues that members of the political elite have been
using religious symbols to win public support.

In her latest move, Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri, who
is also Chairwoman of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle
(PDI-P) went on the haj pilgrimage. This is seen as a trick to
win sympathy from Muslim circles who doubt her religiosity.

Her religious faith has been questioned by Muslim-based
political parties which perceive her nationalist PDI-P as being
dominated by Christians.

As far as politics is concerned, religion has two
contradictory roles. It provides a moral foundation that will
release people from the oppression of those in power but on the
other hand, religious doctrines can hamper democracy as they deny
the existence of other faiths.

People kill each other in the name of religion even though
religion preaches love.

The book, which is a collection of articles printed in
newspapers or presented in seminars -- is divided into three
sections.

The first section titled Religion and Power Discourses in
Indonesia discusses how the manipulation of religion began in the
olden times as has continued up to the present.

The establishment of the Indonesian Muslim Intellectuals
Association (ICMI) in the early 1990s is a hegomonic symbol of
then authoritarian President Soeharto.

But religion can be used to fight authoritarian rule as
described in the second section of the book titled Religion as a
Critic of Power.

History has shown that religion fueled people's spirit to
fight the Dutch and Japanese colonialists.

In this book Zainuddin analyzes current situations in the
country presenting theoretical backgrounds to better understand
them. Of course the theoretical framework is debatable because it
was created to support the writer's assumptions.

There is no explanation of, for example, how Zainuddin comes
to the conclusion that the Muhammadiyah-based National Mandate
Party (PAN) chaired by Amien Rais and the Islamic-based Justice
Party are "reformist".

As the political drama is moving fast, the book has yet to
discuss the most current issues, such as the Islamic parties'
surprising change of stance and their acceptance of Megawati as a
possible president. Just a few months ago, they fiercely rejected
the idea saying that a woman leader is unacceptable in Islam.

Zainuddin concludes that any political platform is still
acceptable if they are inclusive, transparent and egalitarian.

He predicts that the political tensions would continue in the
future if inclusiveness, transparency and egalitarianism are mere
rhetoric. (Ahmad Junaidi)