T

he National Police (Polri) stated that they would not issue a permit for Lady Gaga’s concert scheduled for Jakarta on June 3, 2012, for, among other reasons, fears that the Grammy Award winner would exploit her sensuality in a manner which could harm the moral of Indonesian youths.

This statement is more or less in line with the same tune as that of the Islam Defenders Front (FPI), which previously said that Lady Gaga would “bring the faith of Satan to the country and thus would destroy the nation’s morals” (The Jakarta Post, May 16, 2012).

Whether the police’s decision is right or wrong does not matter. The most serious problem, however, lies in the fact that a small group of people can influence the process of interpreting threats within a state institution like the police by using their “religious” agenda. It is interesting to notice that in post-Soeharto Indonesia, state institutions are submissive, if not controlled, by some hard-line groups in this republic.

In a democratic country, the power of the state comes from the people’s votes through elections. In this context, the state should never discriminate against its citizens when a conflict erupts between such groups. Instead, the state remains neutral and adherent to the Constitution and law when managing the differences among conflicting parties. The state, through law enforcement institutions, has the power to maintain public order and security, enforce the law, provide protection and serve the public interests. State institutions have the mandate to take action to keep the public interests from all forms of threat.

There are several types of threats, namely direct and indirect as well as actual and potential threats. However, threats are also about perception, particularly if we talk about threats on the level of concepts or ideas.

Because the public is not a single entity, threats directed at a particular group are not necessarily a threat against another group. In this case, the law enforcement agencies, e.g., the police, should carefully assess each type of threat, whether actual or potential, direct or indirect; which party or group that will be harmed by the threat; and how it will affect society as a whole. Therefore, they can take necessary actions based on the threat assessment. Nevertheless, the police must handle each assessment in a careful manner. Miscalculating the threat could send the wrong signal to the general public.

In the case of Lady Gaga’s concert and Irshad Manji’s book launching, as well as in other cases such as GKI Yasmin Christian congregation or Ahmadiyah Islamic minority sect, state institutions seemed to fall under the influence or are unable to deal with threats that come from religious hardliner groups.

In those cases, the hardliner groups clearly stated that they would launch physical attacks on other parties. Through their actions, the hardliners were actually presenting more potential, and in some cases, actual threats to other groups.

The irony, however, is that state institutions, which ideally must stay neutral to protect the well-being of all people, are aligning with the hardliner groups. Instead of overcoming potential threats, the state apparatus chooses to cooperate with the side that has launched the threat.

The state in post-Soeharto Indonesia has been co-opted by some groups that are capable of influencing state policy through various means, including threats.

It is indeed the irony of democracy that they freely increase their power and consequently influence and determine the state’s policy. The most concerning issue is not necessarily their threat to attack others, but their attack on the freedom of expression and pluralism, which characterizes the nation.

Worse, they can promote their agenda by intimidating the state. If the state does not comply with their demands, for example, the ban against Lady Gaga’s performance, they will not hesitate to intimidate others, including state institutions.

For whatever reason, including maintenance of public order, the police’s option to accommodate the threat rather than to overcome it is a stark display of a thug-controlled state. It constitutes the tyranny of a minority over the majority. In the end, it will jeopardize Indonesia’s reputation as a democracy. Indonesia’s billing as the third largest democracy in the world will be just a myth, or actually, democracy is already new myth of Indonesia.

Indonesia today is watching the radical groups win another battle-of-discourse over those who are supporting democracy, freedom of speech and plurality. The country needs someone like Gus Dur who dared to challenge the hardliner’s agenda.

As long as the state complies with particular groups’ agenda, then it is hard to deny that Indonesia is transforming into a homogenous society. It depends on Indonesian society whether or not they are determined to advance plurality.

The writer is a post-graduate student at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.