|
It
would be a rough comparison and some people might object to it, but it is
interesting to match the gun control debate in the United States to
Indonesia’s problem of religious intolerance. Certainly, both cases exhibit
differences.
Nevertheless,
the similarities they share are striking. Both are related to the
Constitution of their respective countries and are politically divisive.
The gun control
debate originates from the Second Amendment, which says: “A well-regulated
militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Emphasizing that
constitutional guarantee, gun control opponents argue that the state may
not abridge the right of citizens to possess firearms, not forgetting that
firearms are also beneficial for self-defense. On the other side of the
equation is the fact that firearms are now more deadly than ever.
Leaving
firearms unregulated, proponents of gun control argue, is a recipe for
gun-related crimes. Indeed, a 2011 study found that the US had a much
higher firearm-homicide rate than 23 other high-income countries studied.
Evincing the
constitutional guarantee, efforts to control gun possession have died in
court.
In December
2012, for example, the federal Court of Appeals struck down an Illinois
state law that banned individuals from carrying concealed weapons in
public. In the US, some say, it is easier to own a shotgun than adopt a
puppy.
In Indonesia,
it is harder to buy a shotgun than adopt a puppy. However, it is also
harder for women and some minority groups to do mundane things than adopt a
puppy. In the Aceh city of Lhokseumawe, women risk arrest if they do not
sit on a motorcycle “properly”.
In Bogor, the
local administration prevents GKI Yasmin Christian congregation from
worshipping despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in the church’s favor. In
other regions, Ahmadiyah and other non-mainstream Muslim religious groups
have found themselves being deprived of state protection as people have
accused them of engaging in blasphemy.
What about then
the—seemingly—constitutional argument for civil liberties infringement in
those cases? One can refer to the second amendment of the 1945
Constitution, particularly Article 28J (2).
It says that
individuals’ freedom may be restricted for morality and religious reasons.
By arguing that their actions protect morality and religious values, the
Lhokseumawe mayor and other local administrations who refuse to protect
minority groups can then comfortably take refuge in the article.
Another line
that connects the American gun debate and the Indonesian intolerance
problem is their political relevance and divisiveness. According to the
data from the Center for Responsive Politics, in 2012 alone, the National
Rifle Association (NRA), the main gun control opposition body, donated
US$1.3 million to Congressional candidates and spent another $2.2 million
on lobbying. The controversy over gun control also underlines the
Democrat-Republican split, as many gun control opponents are rural voters
who are likely to be Republicans.
In Indonesia,
religious intolerance is just as, if not more, divisive and as politically
relevant as the gun control debate is in the US.
Discriminative
and intolerant religious bylaws, while condemned by civil rights activists,
attract support from more religious factions in society. The Lhokseumawe’s
no-straddle law, as bizarre as it may seem, garnered support from some
Islamic parties.
In addition,
surveys have also revealed a considerable level of intolerance in society.
A 2006 survey by the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI), for instance, found
that 42 percent of Muslim respondents would object if a non-Muslim house of
worship was built in their neighborhoods. Such a proportion of religiously
zealous people could, for electoral reasons, constrain political elites
from criticizing discriminative bylaws, if not motivate them to issue such
bylaws themselves.
Although a
clear-cut solution is too ambitious in both cases, some effort to bring
order to the endless debate is within sight. Here, given the similarities
between gun control and the intolerance problem, we can learn from recent
actions taken by US President Barack Obama and apply the lessons to our
context.
First, Obama
has made it clear that what he intends to do is to bring in sensible
measures, such as an assault weapons ban, to control gun ownership and not
to abolish the right to bear arms. The Indonesian government could do the
same.
The government
can emphasize that the goal of protecting minorities’ rights is not to turn
Indonesia away from religion, but to make clear which measures of
protecting religious values are sensible and which are not.
Just as
self-defense does not require one to own an assault rifle, common sense
tells us that protecting religious values does not require one to forbid
women from straddling motorcycles, hinder other religions from worshipping,
or burn the homes of Ahmadis.
Preservation of
values can be manifested by the state facilitating interfaith dialogue,
funding religious education institutions, or training religious studies
teachers, while still enforcing the law and ensuring that no citizen harms
another.
Second, it will
demand of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono courage to affirm the
sensible, and outlaw the unreasonable, expressions of religious-value
protection. Yudhoyono might draw criticism if he affirmed the state’s
commitment to protection of Ahmadiyah and other non-mainstream religious
groups. It might also cost him politically if he pushed for more
women-tolerant bylaws in sharia-ruled Aceh. But so it is the case with
Obama. Even before being presented to Congress, the gun control proposal
already drew heavy criticism. The NRA even personally attacked Obama’s family
by bringing his daughters into the debate.
Obama seems not
to be faint-hearted in the face of opposition. He is already in his
second-term, just like Yudhoyono. After the inauguration, he reportedly
stayed on the podium for a while and looked at the crowd, “I’m not going to
see this again.” Neither will Yudhoyono. Both gentlemen have their last
chance to make a change.
Obama’s gun
control proposal will mark his legacy: a safer society. Yudhoyono can also
use his last year in office to leave a much-hoped for legacy for posterity:
a more tolerant society. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar