The challenges of
civil militarism for pluralism
Lee Wilson and Lubendik ;
Lee Wilson is a research fellow in the School
of Political Science and International Studies at the University of
Queensland;
Lubendik is a Masters student in the School of Political
Science and International Studies at the University of Queensland
|
JAKATA
POST, 05 Desember 2014
With
their violent protests against the appointment of Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja
Purnama as governor of Jakarta, the Islam Defenders Front (FPI) has once
again made news headlines.
The
swearing in of Ahok, an ethnically Chinese Christian, to the governorship by
President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo sends a clear message of pluralism to the
Indonesian public.
It is a
message that was lacking under the presidency of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and
one that is to be warmly welcomed in the light of the recent history of
religious and sectarian violence in Indonesia.
However,
while the continued presence of militant organizations presents a significant
challenge for pluralism in Indonesia, somewhat ironically it also suggests
the possibility for a less violent future.
The FPI
is the most infamous of the many ethnic and religious militias that now
proliferate across Indonesia.
Yet
surprisingly, in spite of the burgeoning numbers of these groups, analysis of
data from the National Violence Monitoring System suggests an overall decline
in levels of violence in Indonesia.
This
declining trend in levels of violence may seem counterintuitive in the face
of increased civil militarism, but it might also offer insight into aspects
of Indonesian pluralism that many commentators have failed to appreciate.
The
presence of militia groups has a long history in Indonesia. They were
involved in the struggle for independence and non-state actors have long
played a role in security provision.
Under
the New Order, paramilitary organizations were used as a vehicle for engaging
with and controlling the youth.
With
reformasi the role of these groups has changed. It is no secret that these groups are often
involved in extortion and linked to criminal networks.
However,
Fauzi Bowo, the former governor of Jakarta, encouraged the participation of
groups such as
Forkabi
and Forum Betawi Rempug in security arrangements in Jakarta and the police
regularly quell conflict in the capital with the aid of these groups.
In Bali
members of militia groups have helped to maintain security during high
profile events such as the Asia-Pacific Conference.
While a
potential source of conflict, these groups also provide a means to contain
and reduce violent clashes involving their members and in many cases work for
the public good of their local communities.
The
majority of the members of these groups are marginalized young men with
limited education and little access to the benefits of living in one of the
fastest growing economies in the world.
Membership
offers them a sense of belonging, a support network and even a means of
political representation. In many parts of Indonesia these militias are
actively consolidating their democratic footprint in local elections.
These
groups are becoming more civilized, and their continued presence raises the
question of just what constitutes civil society, and indeed, acceptable modes
of political engagement in the public sphere in Indonesia.
The
government response has been to focus upon the violent threat these groups
pose, and strengthen repressive legislation, the so-called mass organization
bill, Law
No. 17/
2013.
Yet in
the absence of policy informed by analysis of the causes and extent of
identity based violence, this appears to be little more than reactive
government in response to high profile incidents of violence by groups such
as the FPI.
Moreover,
it ignores the “unofficial” processes through state and non-state actors
often work to manage conflict in Indonesia.
Ahok has
called for the FPI to be banned by the Home Ministry. The actions of the FPI
should not be tolerated, and their civic right to exist as an organization
should be withdrawn should they persist in their particular brand of violent
exclusionary politics.
The Home
Ministry has the authority to ban any organization seen to be hostile to others
on the basis of ethnicity or religion. However, no action has yet been taken
against the FPI despite their alleged involvement in sectarian and religious
violence over the last few years. The FPI continues to harangue and
publically threaten those that they deem to be anti-Islamic and Ahok is the
first public figure to declare his intent to see the organization outlawed.
The
FPI’s latest actions may finally spur the Home Ministry to act against them,
especially if Ahok continues to push for the ministry to enforce its
authority to disband the organization.
Nevertheless,
if pluralism is to prevail it will not do so on the basis of rule of law
alone. Even if better attempts were made to legislate mass organizations,
this in many ways goes against the very values that Jokowi, by demonstrating
his support for Ahok, is attempting to promote.
The
basis of the mass organization legislation is to treat all societal groups as
a threat to be overseen and regulated and the law thus threatens to erode
relationships based upon trust between the state and its citizens.
The
starting point for the possibility of Indonesia is diversity. It is
religious, ethnic and cultural diversity that binds the country together.
While identity-based politics are potentially divisive, at least on the face
of things in Indonesia, there seems to be some basis for negotiating across
difference and maintaining social order.
That this should be the case, in spite of the increased presence of
militant organizations and the devolution of government authority, is a
question that should be carefully considered by policy makers and proponents
of Indonesian pluralism alike. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar