| Ahmadiyah Ruling a Test for Civil Society |
|
|
|
|
Fahri Hamzah - The Jakarta Post (June 16, 2008) The government’s decision to issue a joint ministerial decree ordering the Ahmadiyah sect to cease all activities will not stop the public from discussing the controversy. The nation is indeed experiencing a difficult period of how to maintain its unity. The June 1 attack on members of the National Alliance for Freedom of Faith and Religion has drawn mixed reactions from the public. The incident is actually a test for the blossoming civil society 10 years after the reform movement began in Indonesia. This phenomenon is quite disappointing. On one side, we are disappointed with the emergence of a social group using violence, rather than dialogue, in the name of a certain religion and gaining no timely response from law enforcers. Even worse, the police reportedly have used them for moonlighting. On the other side, we are very disappointed With an overreaction from certain parties and figures whom we have paid respect to as reform agents and part of the development of a true democracy in the country. They urged disbanding, not using the courts. The disappointment with the latter group is that civil society in the country is still far from mature. This group is no less emotional and explosive than the previous. The idea of disbanding a civilian organization emerges from an immature attitude and goes against the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution. Facing such a case, the government has been blamed. It has for years showed its weaknesses and failure in running the administration and managing the state. What hap pened at the National Monument (Monas) three weeks ago was actually a time bomb that began ticking when President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Vice President Jusuf Kalla took office in November 2004. The absence of an appropriate policy and decision is found not only in the social field but also in political, economic, environmental and natural resource exploration matters. In the cultural field, the government fails to perceive the meaning of a complicated transition. The long transitionary path to a true democracy is looking idle, reaching its peak in the people’s desperation. As a nation, Indonesia is losing a direction and falling into desperation. And it is quite astonishing and tragic that scuffles and sectarian conflicts among religions, ethnic groups and interest groups are still a com¬mon phenomenon eight years into the millennium age. If we are determined and make a determination that the democratic culture is impossible without dialogue and fair law enforcement, the democracy undoubtedly will go on effectively to gradually bring us toward a strong civil society. But in reality the government blends the meaning of “to be democratic” with”to be ineffective”. We really do not understand how a presidential spokesman, when asked about scuffles between the students and the police, has repeatedly and proudly said that, to the President, “it is all ‘bunga-bunga democracy’ (minor incidents beautifying the democracy).” So, to the government, the chaotic situation and the ineffective law enforcement are really an acceptable side effect. This kind of thinking is very naive. From the beginning, the government should have born in mind that the long transitionary period needed a dialogue and undiscriminatory law enforcement. A dialogue among all social elements should be facilitated along the drastic shifting from the authoritarian regime to an era of liberty. All social elements should know each other in honesty and frankness. So far, conflicts have frequently emerged because of the absence of good communication; and during the dictatorship, the prejudice among religions, ethnicities, social classes and between East and West and Java and non-Java were maintained to preserve the status quo. This condition should be repaired by facilitating a productive diametric dialogue among all parties. The government should have formulated, in the very beginning, a fundamental policy to support and implement their political jargon, bersama kita bisa (together we are able), that functions as a preventive action and settlement mechanism to establishing unity amid a chaotic situation. A dialogue is just a beginning of social communications which have been negated by the development trilogy, which stipulates security is everything. A social dialogue to maintain security has also been prohibited and all social elements were fragmented and formed their own in-groups and perceived others as out-groups and enemy, despite the fact that all elements are brothers. When the state fails to deliver, the people cast their hope on the civilian strength to manage the state and develop a true democracy. But when they were entrusted as public officials to manage the state, one part remained corrupt and another part was proud of themselves despite no performance. The civilian elite group was found unprepared to be states¬men, unable to put the public interests above their personal and group interests. To salvage the reform movement, a “cell group” is needed to work wisely, maturely, intelligently and communicatively to remind all elements that the transition requires honesty and a peaceful path. All the use of intimidation, terror and violence must be halted and prosecuted according to law. And groups should not use the state to disband the FPI. A disbandment of a social organiza¬ion is a bad precedent of killing civilian liberty. And the law must be enforced to determine whether the social organization has gone beyond the Constitution and the law. The FPI should be disbanded only after the government has adequate evidence that its executives has an open or hidden agenda endangering the peace and the common future. Disbanding the FPI will make the problem more complicated and encourage its supporters to take vengeance and raise prejudice among the people. We as members of a big family known as Indonesia should discuss all the problems and seek a peaceful solution. If the FPI goes against the Constitution it is our common obligation to remind it of its violations. Allowing the state to interfere in the religions’ internal affairs is a start of a disaster. Instead of issuing a joint decree to disband the Ahmadiyah sect, the government should have facilitated a social dialogue among Muslims to seek a solution to the issue. A honest and open dialogue among Muslim leaders would certainly be able to settle any disputes and prevent the use of violence no matter how serious the problem is. The writer is deputy secretary-general of the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) and member of the House of Representatives (DPR). He can be reached at Alamat E-mail ini telah dilindungi dari bot spam, anda perlu aktifkan Javascript untuk melihat ini Dibaca: 123
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6 |
|||||||||
Komentar (1)
| < Sebelumnya | Berikutnya > |
|---|