Discussion dispersal threatens democracy
A’an Suryana; Australian
Leadership Awards (ALA) scholar,
A PhD Student at The School of History, Culture and
Language (CHL)
at The Australian National University, Canberra
SUMBER
: JAKARTA
POST, 09 Mei 2012
Freedom of speech was again violated when a
group of hard-line Muslims, backed by local residents, forcibly halted a
discussion that marked the launch of an international book that promotes
critical thinking about Islam last week.
It was not the first time the notorious hard-line militia groups like the Islam Defenders Front (FPI) successfully curbed freedom of expression in Indonesia’s public sphere. The FPI was also the driving force behind the closure of Playboy Indonesia magazine and the prosecution of its then chief editor, Erwin Arnada, an incident that incited global alarm about freedoms of the press in the country.
The latest attack on freedom of speech, which featured female Canadian author and journalist Irshad Manji, was a pummeling slap in face to Indonesia because it happened when international accolades were showered on the country’s vibrant democracy and emerging economy.
The act of civilian oppression has not only discredited Indonesia’s billing as the largest Muslim democracy in the world, but more than that, it threatens the country’s consolidation of democracy.
The forcible dispersal of public discourse, backed by the police, provides disincentives for people to participate in any discussions in public spheres, which are supposed to gather ideas and contest them by use of common sense, in the absence of narrow interests and intervention by other parties. Following the event, public discourses that scrutinize dogmatic Islamic values are unlikely to occur as people are worried about intimidation by the radical groups.
Such situation is reminiscent of the New Order era under Soeharto, when people feared the discussion of current affairs in public, especially those critical of Soeharto, his family and cronies. While Soeharto made full use of the state’s intelligence structures to control the public sphere, hard-liner groups have since taken over that role.
It was not the first time the notorious hard-line militia groups like the Islam Defenders Front (FPI) successfully curbed freedom of expression in Indonesia’s public sphere. The FPI was also the driving force behind the closure of Playboy Indonesia magazine and the prosecution of its then chief editor, Erwin Arnada, an incident that incited global alarm about freedoms of the press in the country.
The latest attack on freedom of speech, which featured female Canadian author and journalist Irshad Manji, was a pummeling slap in face to Indonesia because it happened when international accolades were showered on the country’s vibrant democracy and emerging economy.
The act of civilian oppression has not only discredited Indonesia’s billing as the largest Muslim democracy in the world, but more than that, it threatens the country’s consolidation of democracy.
The forcible dispersal of public discourse, backed by the police, provides disincentives for people to participate in any discussions in public spheres, which are supposed to gather ideas and contest them by use of common sense, in the absence of narrow interests and intervention by other parties. Following the event, public discourses that scrutinize dogmatic Islamic values are unlikely to occur as people are worried about intimidation by the radical groups.
Such situation is reminiscent of the New Order era under Soeharto, when people feared the discussion of current affairs in public, especially those critical of Soeharto, his family and cronies. While Soeharto made full use of the state’s intelligence structures to control the public sphere, hard-liner groups have since taken over that role.
The FPI, to some extent, embraces a similar
strategy as it exerts its domination over the public sphere by the use of
violence. The group also expands its presence nationwide, although the move
sometimes is met by public opposition, as the case of the foiled opening of FPI
chapter in Central Kalimantan a few months ago showed.
The establishment of additional FPI branches is part of democracy and should be respected; however, several experiences suggest that their presence often limits public discourses that conflict with their views on the issues of reformation of Islamic thought and the exercise of freedom.
The situation has worsened as the state apparatuses, which are vested with the power by the Constitution to protect freedom of expression, often allow undemocratic activities to occur, if not condone them. The police tend to give the hard-liners favors for some reason. Some have suggested this preferential treatment stems from allegations that the FPI is backed by powerful military and police figures, although these claims need to be investigated further in order to determine whether such figures are still within the current formal structure of military and police.
The other reasons may include the fact that local police are often required by their superiors to maintain stability, and failing to do may result in officers being shown the door. Last but not least, local police chiefs are often afraid of being branded as insufficiently Islamic if they stand up to hard-line groups.
Interestingly, the last reason was also behind mushrooming implementation of sharia laws in many parts of Indonesia. A study by Melissa Crouch titled “Religious Regulations in Indonesia: Failing Vulnerable Groups” in scholarly journal The Review of Indonesia and Malaysia Affairs shows that many sharia bylaws in the regions have been implemented in the past few years as a result of politicians’ perceived needs to curry favor with their constituents. The failure to support the conservative cause in the public sphere will result into being branded not Islamic enough, which may cost them people’s votes.
This particular psychological aspect explains why the state structure, in the form of legislators and police apparatuses, tends to back ultra-conservative causes on the issues of sharia laws and private morality, which certainly decreases the quality of public sphere.
The only way to improve the quality of the public sphere — crucial for the establishment of democracy — although it may sound cliché, is through the fair creation and equal enforcement of the law. According to German philosopher Jurgen Habermas, the state should help create proliferation of public discourse by creating a set of rules that assure everybody is free to participate; everybody can participate on an equal footing in the public sphere; there are no restrictions of topics; and last but not least, the public sphere is free from state, corporate, or religious intervention.
If those conditions are met, public discourse in the public sphere will result in better outcomes of public policy, better understanding of topic matter and will enlighten members of the public, which improves the lives of all.
Unfortunately, the fresh incident in the Salihara compound on Friday shows that the state has failed to protect the purity of the public sphere, marking a setback for Indonesian democracy. ●
The establishment of additional FPI branches is part of democracy and should be respected; however, several experiences suggest that their presence often limits public discourses that conflict with their views on the issues of reformation of Islamic thought and the exercise of freedom.
The situation has worsened as the state apparatuses, which are vested with the power by the Constitution to protect freedom of expression, often allow undemocratic activities to occur, if not condone them. The police tend to give the hard-liners favors for some reason. Some have suggested this preferential treatment stems from allegations that the FPI is backed by powerful military and police figures, although these claims need to be investigated further in order to determine whether such figures are still within the current formal structure of military and police.
The other reasons may include the fact that local police are often required by their superiors to maintain stability, and failing to do may result in officers being shown the door. Last but not least, local police chiefs are often afraid of being branded as insufficiently Islamic if they stand up to hard-line groups.
Interestingly, the last reason was also behind mushrooming implementation of sharia laws in many parts of Indonesia. A study by Melissa Crouch titled “Religious Regulations in Indonesia: Failing Vulnerable Groups” in scholarly journal The Review of Indonesia and Malaysia Affairs shows that many sharia bylaws in the regions have been implemented in the past few years as a result of politicians’ perceived needs to curry favor with their constituents. The failure to support the conservative cause in the public sphere will result into being branded not Islamic enough, which may cost them people’s votes.
This particular psychological aspect explains why the state structure, in the form of legislators and police apparatuses, tends to back ultra-conservative causes on the issues of sharia laws and private morality, which certainly decreases the quality of public sphere.
The only way to improve the quality of the public sphere — crucial for the establishment of democracy — although it may sound cliché, is through the fair creation and equal enforcement of the law. According to German philosopher Jurgen Habermas, the state should help create proliferation of public discourse by creating a set of rules that assure everybody is free to participate; everybody can participate on an equal footing in the public sphere; there are no restrictions of topics; and last but not least, the public sphere is free from state, corporate, or religious intervention.
If those conditions are met, public discourse in the public sphere will result in better outcomes of public policy, better understanding of topic matter and will enlighten members of the public, which improves the lives of all.
Unfortunately, the fresh incident in the Salihara compound on Friday shows that the state has failed to protect the purity of the public sphere, marking a setback for Indonesian democracy. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar