|
As an intolerant group rallies against Lenteng
Agung’s Christian subdistrict chief Susan Jasmine Zulkifli for being a
non-Muslim leader in a predominately Muslim area in South Jakarta, it seems she
cannot expect support from her own government.
A recent statement by Home Minister Gamawan Fauzi directed at Jakarta Governor Joko “Jokowi” Widodo suggested Susan should be placed in a non-Muslim area.
It comes to no surprise when a high-ranking government official expresses his or her notions that we should easily succumb to the voices of loud, sometimes destructive, intolerant groups.
Recent cases of how the government has handled religious intolerance have shown its incapability or perhaps lack of will to handle such things as fairly and justly. Ahmadis all over Indonesia and the Shiites in Sampang are no strangers to the government’s rather one-sided policies in dealing with their cases. The Christians in the never-ending Indonesian Christian Church (GKI) Yasmin case in Bogor can also attest to the same thing.
Does it amount to a misunderstanding of democracy, or a hidden conspiracy agenda? One can only guess.
Yet, what we can see now is that with these biased policies the government has hastily churned out, the government has limited not only the constitutional rights of its citizens but has also severely deprived its people of their wants.
If we use Gamawan’s prejudiced understanding that religious minorities can only govern in a society that has similar religious backgrounds then that would severely limit the political chances of the minority in wanting to contribute, thus also limiting it to actively participate in the development of Indonesia.
By denying minority rights and desire to contribute, there arises the feeling of being excluded.
It amounts to a move that may prove regrettable in the not too distant future.
In a book entitled Changing Citizenship: Democracy and Inclusion in Education, the authors argue that citizenship “has three essential and complementary dimensions” namely status, feelings and practice. These dimensions are intertwined with one another, however we often turn a blind eye to feelings and give the most attention to the legal status of one’s citizenship.
Feelings are rarely discussed in a socio-political discourse and are often neglected in a political equation. Nevertheless, the role of feelings in citizenship is prominent. Citizenship can no longer be narrowly defined as just a legal status between an individual and the state.
The feeling of exclusion may impact on how the individual participates in any democratic or development process in Indonesia. Minorities may no longer see the need to practice their citizenship as they have become indifferent toward it, a possible feeling of apathy that arises due to a lack of receiving sympathy.
Citizenship that is based on mere laws is superficial at best. Having laws that define and form an individual’s sense of citizenship does not entirely correlate with citizens actively participating in the affairs of nation building.
The bond between citizenship and personal-individual feelings is a strong one. This is what underlines and strengthens the legal status of citizenship itself.
In the long run, the constant feeling of exclusion and socio-political apathy of Indonesia’s minorities may cause a backlash to Indonesia as a whole. From dwindling voters to a violent uprising, a possible exodus of the minorities or even a brain drain effect may stifle the development of Indonesia.
The government here is playing a high stakes, dangerous game with its reluctance to dealing with issues of intolerance fairly. An undertone of utilizing the fastest and the easiest way out in handling these issues is evident and will seldom equate to a long-term peaceful solution.
This is not only endangering Indonesia’s minorities but also the democratic values that Indonesia is already struggling to live by. Desecrating their wishes to be fully acknowledged citizens by marginalizing them is nothing but a distorted interpretation of democracy. As noted by the political activist Ralph Nader, “there can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship.”
Should the government continuously act in such a way, we should all expect not only issues of intolerance to rise for the foreseeable future, but also an increase in the socio-political apathy of religious minorities.
My advice is this: just don’t blame the minorities when things start going south. They already have too much on their plates. ●
A recent statement by Home Minister Gamawan Fauzi directed at Jakarta Governor Joko “Jokowi” Widodo suggested Susan should be placed in a non-Muslim area.
It comes to no surprise when a high-ranking government official expresses his or her notions that we should easily succumb to the voices of loud, sometimes destructive, intolerant groups.
Recent cases of how the government has handled religious intolerance have shown its incapability or perhaps lack of will to handle such things as fairly and justly. Ahmadis all over Indonesia and the Shiites in Sampang are no strangers to the government’s rather one-sided policies in dealing with their cases. The Christians in the never-ending Indonesian Christian Church (GKI) Yasmin case in Bogor can also attest to the same thing.
Does it amount to a misunderstanding of democracy, or a hidden conspiracy agenda? One can only guess.
Yet, what we can see now is that with these biased policies the government has hastily churned out, the government has limited not only the constitutional rights of its citizens but has also severely deprived its people of their wants.
If we use Gamawan’s prejudiced understanding that religious minorities can only govern in a society that has similar religious backgrounds then that would severely limit the political chances of the minority in wanting to contribute, thus also limiting it to actively participate in the development of Indonesia.
By denying minority rights and desire to contribute, there arises the feeling of being excluded.
It amounts to a move that may prove regrettable in the not too distant future.
In a book entitled Changing Citizenship: Democracy and Inclusion in Education, the authors argue that citizenship “has three essential and complementary dimensions” namely status, feelings and practice. These dimensions are intertwined with one another, however we often turn a blind eye to feelings and give the most attention to the legal status of one’s citizenship.
Feelings are rarely discussed in a socio-political discourse and are often neglected in a political equation. Nevertheless, the role of feelings in citizenship is prominent. Citizenship can no longer be narrowly defined as just a legal status between an individual and the state.
The feeling of exclusion may impact on how the individual participates in any democratic or development process in Indonesia. Minorities may no longer see the need to practice their citizenship as they have become indifferent toward it, a possible feeling of apathy that arises due to a lack of receiving sympathy.
Citizenship that is based on mere laws is superficial at best. Having laws that define and form an individual’s sense of citizenship does not entirely correlate with citizens actively participating in the affairs of nation building.
The bond between citizenship and personal-individual feelings is a strong one. This is what underlines and strengthens the legal status of citizenship itself.
In the long run, the constant feeling of exclusion and socio-political apathy of Indonesia’s minorities may cause a backlash to Indonesia as a whole. From dwindling voters to a violent uprising, a possible exodus of the minorities or even a brain drain effect may stifle the development of Indonesia.
The government here is playing a high stakes, dangerous game with its reluctance to dealing with issues of intolerance fairly. An undertone of utilizing the fastest and the easiest way out in handling these issues is evident and will seldom equate to a long-term peaceful solution.
This is not only endangering Indonesia’s minorities but also the democratic values that Indonesia is already struggling to live by. Desecrating their wishes to be fully acknowledged citizens by marginalizing them is nothing but a distorted interpretation of democracy. As noted by the political activist Ralph Nader, “there can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship.”
Should the government continuously act in such a way, we should all expect not only issues of intolerance to rise for the foreseeable future, but also an increase in the socio-political apathy of religious minorities.
My advice is this: just don’t blame the minorities when things start going south. They already have too much on their plates. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar