Tegas Nathanael Gratias Sumaktoyo  ;   Mahasiswa Doktoral Program Politik Amerika di Universitas Notre Dame, AS

KOMPAS,  09 Juni 2014

                                                

                                                                                         

                                                      

MENJELANG Pemilu Presiden 9 Juli 2014, perdebatan tentang sosok presiden ideal makin mengemuka. Selain kualitas umum seperti anti korupsi dan jujur, beberapa pendapat menekankan pentingnya ketegasan dalam diri presiden mendatang. Pertanyaannya kemudian, apakah tegas itu? Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia (KBBI) hanya memberikan pengertian: 1) jelas dan terang benar; nyata, 2) tentu dan pasti, 3) tandas. Definisi-definisi tersebut tidak terang, tidak menempatkan ketegasan itu dalam konteks. Definisi itu juga membuka peluang bagi dua wajah ketegasan: ketegasan yang mengayomi dan ketegasan yang mendominasi. Tahun 1962, George Wallace mencalonkan diri sebagai gubernur Alabama. Ia berjanji mempertahankan segregasi ras dan tak membiarkan murid kulit hitam belajar di sekolah kulit putih. Setelah terpilih, ia menepati janji. Bersama Garda Nasional yang ada di bawah komandonya, Wallace menghalang dua murid kulit hitam yang hendak mendaftar di Universitas Alabama. Di Washington, John F Kennedy melihat semua itu dengan marah. Sebagai presiden, ia menjamin kesetaraan hak warga kulit hitam. Bertekad menepati janjinya, Kennedy mengambil alih komando Garda Nasional dari Wallace. Ia pun memerintahkan Garda Nasional membuka jalan dan melindungi kedua calon mahasiswa kulit hitam yang haknya terampas oleh rasisme. Hampir tiga dekade kemudian, di belahan dunia lain, seorang kulit hitam menghirup udara bebas setelah 30 tahun dipenjara. Orang itu, Nelson Mandela, tidak lama kemudian terpilih sebagai presiden Afrika Selatan dan harus mempersatukan negara yang dikoyak oleh rasisme. Ia dapat saja mengikuti jejak para revolusioner seperti Stalin atau Lenin dengan bertindak tegas menghukum kulit putih yang telah menindas kulit hitam. Ketegasan demikian barangkali malah akan membuatnya makin populer di mata kulit hitam yang telah lama jadi warga kelas dua. Namun, alih-alih melakukan pembalasan, Mandela malah membawa pengampunan. Ia mengangkat menteri-menteri kulit putih dan memberikan grasi para pelaku kekerasan di masa lalu jika bersedia mengakui kesalahannya. Kebijakannya membawa kontroversi. Bahkan, istrinya, Winnie Mandela, mengkritik Mandela sebagai sosok yang tidak tegas dan hanya ingin menyenangkan kelompok kulit putih. Pilihan kita Kembali pada pemilu presiden yang akan kita hadapi, ketegasan seperti apakah yang kita harapkan? Apakah kita ingin presiden yang tegas seperti George Wallace atau Kennedy? Apakah kita tertarik untuk memiliki seorang Nelson Mandela atau seperti Stalin yang kuat dan ditakuti meski sebatas mulut senapan? Melihat kondisi bangsa sekarang, wajar jika banyak yang merasa pemimpin yang tegas adalah solusi bagi semua itu. Korupsi, ormas anarkis, intervensi asing—seandainya pemimpin kita tegas—semua pasti tidak akan terjadi bukan? Mungkin iya, mungkin tidak. Pemimpin tegas tak menjamin bebas korupsi. Orde Baru seharusnya jadi pelajaran penting. Pemimpin tegas juga tidak menjamin bubarnya ormas anarkis. Kepala daerah yang setuju dengan ormas-ormas dalam menolak rumah ibadah kelompok minoritas, misalnya, sejatinya adalah kepala daerah yang tegas—menurut KBBI—karena mereka tidak ragu dalam mengambil keputusan. Persoalannya kini bukanlah apakah kita memilih pemimpin yang tegas, melainkan pemimpin kita yang harus bersikap tegas. Apakah kita ingin yang tegas dalam menghukum dan lihai menggunakan kekuatan represif negara ataukah pemimpin yang tegas dalam prinsip tetapi mengutamakan dialog dan mengesampingkan kekuatan koersif? Sejauh ini konsepsi kita tentang ketegasan cenderung pada tipe pertama. Tegas kita samakan dengan kuat, ditakuti, dan berapi-api. Kita perlu mengubah persepsi itu. Perubahan tidak melulu harus dengan kekuatan. Perubahan bisa dicapai dengan cara-cara yang elegan dan konstruktif, cara-cara yang sayangnya sering kita asosiasikan dengan lemah atau penakut. Kita perlu belajar pada Gandhi yang pernah menulis, ”Dengan cara yang lembut, Anda (sejatinya) bisa mengguncang dunia.” ●

Voter’s homework ahead of polls Nathanael Gratias Sumaktoyo  ;  A Former Summer Data Analyst at US President Barack Obama’s 2012 Presidential Campaign Headquarters

JAKARTA POST,  18 Januari 2014

                                                                                                                       

With the 2014 election on the horizon, more party elites being suspects of corruption and the public perception of parties and politicians at an all time low, one may justifiably wonder if the next election, or any election, can bring real change.  If elections are competitions among parties and if parties are corrupt and untrustworthy to advance society’s interests, how can one expect something good to emerge from them? Interestingly, that the parties are perceived as untrustworthy cannot be more different than what early theorists of democracy predicted. Early thinkers such as Alexander Hamilton and Henry John Bolingbroke were very worried that parties would be so committed to their constituents so as to ignite hostilities between social groups and collapse the state.  Parties, thus, are evil things that must be halted by installing a magistrate of supreme virtue as ruler whose justness will overcome all conflicts in society. In Indonesia, we need to look no further than the people who champion a religious state. They believe that a divine law or ruler will solve all the country’s problems. Unfortunately, since mankind is fallible, giving freedom to humans entails giving them opportunities to make mistakes both in their actions and opinions.  No law or ruler, no matter how just or good, can prevent the emergence of disagreement and conflicting interests. Consequently, parties as political vehicles of societal groups will always be different from one another. But then why do Indonesian parties all look the same? For example, a 2011 survey by the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI) found that voters were getting more detached from and skeptical of parties in general.  It is also hard to differentiate the parties in terms of policies. All parties put on a pro-poor display and prefer to show a moderate centrist image. That’s why we’ve seen Islamic parties eventually abandon their pursuit to gain formal recognition of the Jakarta Charter — a document that would require Muslims to live by Islamic laws — and supposedly secular parties race to endorse religious bylaws. If parties are just following the wind — ready any time to abandon their core constituents to get a better vote share — why should voters believe that parties care about something other than reaching power? There is a short-term strategy to hold parties more accountable: by making them parts again. Party elites opt to resemble each other because they realize it is easier to share power than to compete for it.  Endorsing different ideologies or policies means competition and in competition there are always winners and losers. In a regime with power-sharing, much like Indonesia, on the other hand, everyone gets a slice of power. The only losers are the people. They can still vote, but their votes do not matter much because regardless of which party wins, the policies will remain the same. It is therefore in the interest of the voters to counter the top-down incentive of power-sharing with a more bottom-up incentive. Voters need to show the parties that their votes are worth fighting for.  Party elites are the ones setting the direction of a party, but voters can reward the party for moving toward them and punish it for moving away from them, hence indirectly influencing its direction.  If parties become parts again, true competition can manifest and each party would answer only to specific constituencies rather than the whole electorate. A more specific accountability mechanism will grant the voters more control over the parties’ directions. Civil society organizations (CSOs) can play their part, too. To take religious freedom as an example, CSOs could publish a list of regional heads, along with their parties, who are the least and most accommodating in terms of worship house permits.  Some CSOs already report religious freedom violations, but such reports will be more politically consequential if they also acclaim and inform the voters about regional heads and their parties who are supportive of religious diversity.  By doing so, the CSOs send a message to political elites that protecting religious freedom can also be politically rewarding. This kind of appreciation will help counteract the political incentives offered by radical groups.  It is democracy’s bitter truth that one cannot expect righteousness to prevail unless one also ensures that being righteous has political benefits.  The spirit in all this effort is to make parties parts again. When parties are no longer similar to each other, voters will have choices — real choices. To get there, voters must contribute.  They need to be less apathetic. They need to not only punish but also reward parties for doing things they think are right. CSOs can help voters do their job by highlighting issues in which parties take different routes, hence reinforcing those differences.  They also need to bring into the spotlight politicians who stand out from the crowd [both in the positive and negative senses of the words], such as by keeping politicians’ score cards, commonly used in the US congress. It is basically devide et impera applied in reverse to the powerful: parting parties so they can be better ruled. ●

Uncle Sam’s place in Indonesians’ hearth

Uncle Sam’s place in Indonesians’ hearth Nathanael Gratias Sumaktoyo ;   A Doctoral Student in American Politics at the University of Notre Dame, Former Summer Analyst at Barack Obama’s 2012 Presidential Campaign Headquarters JAKARTA POST, 22 Agustus 2013

If we were to judge Indonesians’ opinion of the United States based on what the political elites say or the media relates, very likely we would arrive at a bleak conclusion. The US is often portrayed as an evil country that interferes in Indonesia’s domestic affairs. 

Examples of this are abundant. The elites of the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) argue that the corruption charge leveled at the party’s former president is a conspiracy stirred up by Jews and the US. In regard to Papua’s independence, some cannot refrain from believing that the US wants Papua to gain independence, although former US ambassador Scot Marciel has already stated that Papua is part of Indonesia. 

Talking about US conspiracies, it seems one must surely mention accusations by some radical groups that Indonesia’s war on terrorism is nothing but an extension of the US’ war on Islam. “Why are captured or killed terrorists all Muslims?” the groups ask.

Interestingly, despite the evil portrayal of Uncle Sam, a recent survey by Pew’s Global Attitudes Project paints a different picture. The study shows that Indonesia actually has relatively favorable attitudes toward the US. For example, 61 percent of Indonesian respondents said they had a positive image of the US. That ranks Indonesia 22nd out of 39 countries surveyed—much higher than Turkey, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan or Pakistan, which occupy the bottom five.

Another question, whether respondents saw the US as a partner of Indonesia, 46 percent answered that the US was indeed a partner with only 6 percent saying it was an enemy. 

In that regard, Indonesia ranked 24th out of 37 countries surveyed. Senegal (84 percent, 3rd) and Malaysia (59 percent, 20th) are the only Muslim-majority countries that have higher rankings. 

The positive opinions, however, do not mean that Indonesians agree with all US actions. In regard to drone strikes, for example, only 8 percent of respondents said they were acceptable. That is as low as other Muslim-majority countries’ acceptance rates, such as Turkey (7 percent), Pakistan (5 percent), and Palestine (3 percent). 

About 74 percent of participants also believed that the US exerts a great or fair amount of influence in Indonesia’s affairs. How was it possible then, that the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, which disagrees with drone strikes — which obviously kill mostly Muslims — still has relatively positive views of a country that not only is the main user of drone strikes main but which is also perceived as influencing its affairs?

Other questions in the survey offer at least two explanations. The first explanation is that Indonesians like the US despite hating drone strikes because they believe the US considers Indonesian interests when making policy decisions. Fifty-two percent of respondents said the US considers Indonesian interests. From this perspective, the US seems to be an understanding country.

The second explanation is more of a self-reflection. The disapproval of drone strikes and anti-US political rhetoric fail to generate negative sentiments toward Uncle Sam not because he is nice, but because Indonesians are first of all occupied with the seemingly wrong direction of their own country. About 69 percent and 62 percent of respondents respectively said they were dissatisfied with where Indonesia was heading and the country’s economic situation. 

Based on this perspective, anti-US discourse by some of our politicians is viewed as nothing but an effort to distract people from the real problem, which is bad internal management. The positive image of the US held by ordinary citizens can therefore be seen as the people’s way of saying, “Stop scapegoating. We are not buying it”.

As much as Indonesians’ positive image of the US tells Indonesian politicians to stop blaming others for our own failures, it also sends a message to the US, which reads “Let’s understand each other better.” In the late 1980s, the US lost Afghanistan to the mujaheeden because it thought that all it would take for the two to be friends happily ever after would be to provide Afghans with enough weapons to oust the Soviets.

The US could lose Indonesia too, the world’s largest Muslim-majority country and third-largest democracy, if it thinks all that matters is economic cooperation. Given Indonesia’s great income inequality, economic assistance is pretty much unlikely to touch the average Indonesians’ lives. More important than the economy, the US needs to build cultural bridges, especially with the Muslim population. 

Although having failed at times, Indonesia has been trying to show that Islam is compatible with democracy. As a mature democracy, the US also needs to show that democracy is indeed compatible with Islam. 

It needs to show that democracy does not mean abandoning religion, or embracing chaos or hedonism. It has to work harder to show that the US in particular and democracies in general are not the enemy of Islam. 

Uncle Sam’s present place in Indonesians’ hearts must not be taken as a sign that the US is doing well. Instead, it needs to be read as Indonesians opening their arms to the US for a better relationship in the future. ● 

Old John Brown and 11 commando soldiers

Old John Brown and 11 commando soldiers Nathanael Gratias Sumaktoyo ;  A Fulbright Student on Social Psychology at Loyola University Chicago

JAKARTA POST, 24 April 2013

  

It was Oct. 16, 1859. The United States of America was divided over the slavery issue between a pro-slavery South and an anti-slavery North. An old anti-slavery man, John Brown, led dozens of people to capture a federal arsenal in Harper’s Ferry, Virginia. Their intention was noble, much more noble than fame or revenge. They wanted to arm the slaves and provoke them to rebel against their masters. That way, they hoped to end slavery in the South. Unfortunately — or perhaps fortunately — Brown failed to provoke the slaves to join him. A Marine detachment came and took the armory back. Many of Brown’s men were killed. Brown himself was captured and later sentenced to death. His composure in the face of death inspired the North’s anti-slavery sentiment: “I am ... feeling the strongest assurance that in no other possible way could I be used to so much advance the cause of God; and of humanity.” One and half centuries later, 11 Indonesian commandos raided a prison in Sleman, Yogyakarta and killed four inmates. Although the Army (TNI) claimed the killings were motivated by esprit de corps, the carnage represented revenge. The inmates, who the Army identified as thugs, had allegedly killed the soldiers’ ex-commander, who had saved the life of one of the soldiers during a combat operation.  Just like Brown’s, the actions of the soldiers have ignited controversies. Many are supportive of them, as evident in the campaign against thuggery. They argue that the inmates deserved to die because they were thugs. Killing them was a service for the country. It made society safer. Unsurprisingly, the soldiers, much like Brown, believed what they did was right. Is that so? Far from ending the North-South division on slavery, Brown exacerbated it. The pro-slavery South believed that Brown acted on behalf of the anti-slavery North. Governments of slave states started to limit anti-slavery speeches. Pro-slavery radicals even put US$50,000 on the head of William Seward, a leading anti-slavery Republican and Abraham Lincoln’s future secretary of state, who knew nothing of the raid. Worst of all, Brown’s move emboldened the South’s secessionist sentiment, which would lead to a civil war a little more than a year later. Brown’s raid, no matter how noble its purpose was, was lawless and what it brought was even more lawlessness. The commandos’ operation was equally lawless. To say it from a militaristic point of view, if in wars, soldiers should respect the rights of prisoners of war, with any violations leading to a military tribunal, should not these prisoners’ rights be stronger, as they were civilians in a time of peace? In no case can justifications be made for the soldiers’ actions of killing the prisoners.  Though some respect should be given to them for their honesty in accepting responsibility for their actions, the soldiers have tainted the image of the military. It will be a great test for the TNI to try its own members for doing something that is perhaps publicly popular but morally and legally wrong. On the other side of the coin, the soldiers have underlined society’s desperation with crimes and lawlessness in the country. Notwithstanding the great wrong done by these commandos, an equally great, if not greater, wrong is the government’s inability to enforce the law and clean up the corrupt justice system. With politicians in line for corruption charges, police generals possessing fishy assets of billions and religious thugs unaccountable for their violence, the public might begin to wonder if they can still trust the system to provide them with justice and security. Actually, that happened in 1859. Brown also wondered if he still could believe in the system to limit the extension of slavery and uphold the American credo that “all men are created equal”. What he found instead was that the government became more and more accommodating of slavery. He could no longer trust the system, so he took the matter into his own hands. Back to the present, if the commandos, who were part of the system, were not confident that the system would bring justice for the murder of their comrade, how then can we describe the desperation of millions of citizens who have no arms or power to channel their hopelessness? If desperation and disbelief toward the system make a cold-blooded murder right, should not they also make right (God forbid) the insurrections of disaffected civilians? Doris Goodwin’s Team of Rivals pictures a moving moment when Salmon Chase, a leading abolitionist and Lincoln’s future secretary of treasury, asks his daughter Nettie to dismantle a miniature fort she had built with her friends to honor Brown. Chase told Nettie that slavery was a great wrong but “a great wrong could not be righted in the way poor old John Brown had attempted to do.” There is a requirement for a state to survive and the submission of all before the law. When we start to agree that certain people or groups have the right to withdraw their obedience for whatever purpose, we are very likely digging our own country’s grave. ●

American guns and Indonesian intolerance

American guns and Indonesian intolerance Nathanael Gratias Sumaktoyo ;   A Fulbright Student studying Social Psychology at Loyola University, Chicago

JAKARTA POST, 08 Februari 2013

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. ●