TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
The apparent battle: The politicians against the pundits
Who is actually battling whom in the Indonesian public realm? Is the battle occurring between Muslim moderates and radicals? To some extent, this may be true
Change Size
Who is actually battling whom in the Indonesian public realm? Is the battle occurring between Muslim moderates and radicals? To some extent, this may be true. Yet it does not entirely portray what is going on in Indonesia.
Recall who supported the pornography bill and who opposed it. If we conclude that Muslim moderates are all annoyed by that already signed bill, and their fellow hard-liners are always prepared to support it, this would oversimplify the more complex reality.
True, this ambiguous and disputed law will fuel some more radicals to be vigilantes in the name of guarding religious morality.
However, if we take a closer look, this battle seems also to be between the politicians and the pundits.be so surprised with this conclusion, as it's supported by the following signals.
Besides the voices from eastern parts of Indonesia, particularly Bali and Papua, during their demonstrations against the billwho else stood behind those voices? The answer is pundits, be they artists, academics, writers, priests or community leaders.
Their voices have loudly been echoed. Yet our politicians, the House of Representatives and the executive, did not listen to them. Our politicians have gone on their own pathproposing, drafting, revising, defending and finally signing that bill.
There is a huge gap, in that respect, between the politicians' attitudes and the advice offered by the pundits. Here is a great difference between the pundits and the politicians.
Whereas the pundits must be, and must have been, loyal to the true morality of this nation, the politicians are always tempted by some instant and pragmatic considerations.
The pundits, who avoid any immediate personal gain, look out for the long-term interest of the nation while the politicians must cautiously watch their popularityparticularly when the general election is approaching.
The pundits may make their opinion known, even if they are against the common people, as they have no interest in gaining public support for their positions.
The politicians, on the other hand, calculate every step and how it is improving their image or damaging it.
However, in Indonesia, the position of the pundits and the politicians are often mixed. Some of our leaders have attempted to play the roles of both.
Unsurprisingly, we are over and over again confused about which voices should resonate -those intended as a guide for true morality or those designed for instantaneous beneficial political purposes. We have to be careful in digesting those voices.
Don't swallow every edict, even if it is pronounced by those who wear robes and hold Rosario. At the same time,throw away the advice of those whose hair is long and uncombed. The latter may be wali (saint).
Some Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah leaders, such as Ahmad Syafi'i Ma'arif and Mustofa Bisri, offer truly genuine advice, which the ummah (Muslim community) can follow.
However, there is no secret anymore that some leaders from both organizations often use religious sentiments of their ummah to support their political ambitions.
The prospect of being a vice presidential candidate to one of the presidential candidates seems to have tempted them.
Nevertheless, here is an example of the pragmatism of one of the leaders of the Islamist political party, the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), which tries to mix political and religious authority. After courting Soeharto's family and cronies, by forging images of his heroic side, the leader of that political party and current speaker of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), Hidayat Nur Wahid, is now tempting the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) to plunge into a debate over its religious and political authority.
That is, Wahid endorsed the MUI to pronounce an edict, that would prohibit (haram) those whovote (golput) in the next general election.
Whose voice is that? That of the pundits for the sake of true morality or that of politicians who use religion on the political stage? Is that the voice of those worried about losing votes?
All in all, the politicians may have triumphed in this public battle as they have sometimes deprived the pundits of religious and moral authority by using political power. The pundits, on the other hand, should never tire of voicing that true morality - be it religious or cultural wisdom - that remains in their hands. Those who play double roles are mere phony-pundits.
The writer is currently working on his book, Representing the Enemy: The Legacy of Musaylimah in Muslim Literature for publication, originally a Ph.D dissertation.
