JP/P.J. Leo

Toward the end of 2009, Indonesia, a supposedly moderate Islamic country, shocked the world again. It wasn’t bombings this time; it was a new bylaw in Aceh that allowed the stoning to death of married adulterers. For the unmarried, the law stipulated 100 lashes for the couple. These were part of the new Islamic criminal code in the province, and did not differentiate between Muslims and non-Muslims.

As soon as the provincial legislature passed the bylaw, the Home Ministry said it would file a request to have it revoked by the Supreme Court because it was deemed to violate the Constitution, which guarantees human rights.

On the same grounds, the National Commission for Violence Against Women immediately said it would file a judicial review over Aceh’s special autonomy law itself, which authorizes the local government to pass sharia-based rules — invoking an annoyed response on the part of local authorities.

To date, the commission remains alone in demanding a review of the Aceh autonomy law, particularly regarding its above authority.

The commission clearly hit on a political taboo — it had demanded the revocation of one of those quid-pro-quo results of hard bargaining. The autonomy law for Aceh was a follow-up of the historic peace agreement between the government and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM); its implementation is still hampered by Jakarta politicians — and now some women wanted its unprecedented powers revoked!

Commission chairwoman Kamala Chandrakirana recently repeated demands to revoke all laws and bylaws leading to “discrimination” against women and other affected groups across the country, even as the Home Ministry had stated earlier there was nothing wrong with those local rules.

They had nothing to do with religion, said the minister at the time; they were just rules on “customs”.
Why would a modern country allow “customary” bylaws regulating what time women should be home, what they should wear and what type of behavior they should or should not be exhibiting?

The commission maintains these laws are discriminatory against women and non-Muslims, and go against the Constitution, which guarantees human rights for all citizens.

It was only when reports of Aceh’s “stoning bylaw” emerged that the Home Ministry said this was a violation of the Constitution.

This shows the state tolerates discrimination to a certain point: “Customs” are allowed as long as they are not extreme to the point of making Indonesia look ridiculous in the eyes of the international community. The regulation of “customs” need not be questioned as long as they serve to make regional politicians happy.

What women’s activists, including those on the commission are saying is that there’s a limit to bargaining, whether it’s with Aceh separatists or unruly local politicians: You don’t use women as bargaining chips; you don’t confuse culture, customs or autonomy with human rights.

The question for next year is whether the new administration, with a new state minister for women’s empowerment, and a new generation of commissioners, legislators and activists see eye to eye on this issue.

Will the government continue to tolerate “customary” rules, among others raising the excuse of local authorities under regional autonomy law?

The commission and activists have considerable backing on the international stage, when they cite the UN conventions that Indonesia has ratified, and the addition of the UN Special Rapporteur for Violence on Women 15 years ago.

At the local level, the support is clear from the greater awareness to take up women’s issues and act on them without waiting for government help — numerous groups across the country have set up centers for women, either to cater to abused wives or to distribute credit and train women to improve their independence and self-esteem.

Political representation is a little better, with women now making up almost 18 percent of the House of Representatives. Even if the Constitutional Court slashed the requisite that political parties field at least 30 percent of women among their candidates for elections, the push for affirmative action is expected to lead to higher recruitment for female politicians in the near future.

But while public awareness is better now regarding the acknowledgement of problems because of gender differences, and that policies and actions must be undertaken to address it, it’s a different picture among decision makers.

At the national and local levels, political representation of women would need to be much stronger in the politicians’ ability and awareness to say “No” to policies that could potentially harm women. This is where “sisters’ solidarity” is tested, regardless of the higher education now evident among lawmakers.

Would a female lawmaker, for instance,  put her foot down on colleagues intent on passing a bylaw on “Muslim clothing” amid local enthusiasm for a religious identity — and ignore potential pressures on women and non-Muslims who might resent such a rule?

A related factor would be whether President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono finds it in himself  to be firm in his current, second chance after re-election; otherwise Jakarta would still be sending the signal that it’s “powerless” in the face of local policies.

As long as Jakarta says local policies on behavior and morality are no problem, it sends the message that decision makers are blind to global fundamentalist tendencies, cropping up here and there in the form of conservatism, even if it only looks like a township curfew for women.

It’s convenient to blame everything on 9/11.

But Indonesians deserve to expect that their leaders understand better the Constitution, the result of too much sacrifice to ignore just for political interests.


The author is a staff writer at The Jakarta Post.

Popular

RI, Australia strengthen partnership on taxing crypto assets

Analysis: Indonesia denies normalization with Israel to enter OECD

Citroen to produce electric cars in Indonesia