P

ros and cons over whether to dissolve the Islam Defenders Front (FPI) have been rife in the wake of a clash involving the hardline group and local people in the Central Java town of Kendal last week. After repeatedly promoting violence, resulting in social unrest across the country, now is the time for everyone to say '€œenough is enough'€ to the FPI, especially given the passage of the Mass Organization Bill by the House of Representatives and the President'€™s call for zero tolerance against FPI vigilantism.

Many believe that the FPI could and should be disbanded soon, or else the state will totally lose its authority over the FPI and other radical groups. However, I do not believe that the state should be granted the right to dissolve the FPI or any other organization for that matter.

Indeed the FPI has ignited problems and these issues should be addressed accordingly. The FPI has not only hijacked Islam but it has also abused democracy. But the state'€™s disbandment of an organization that cannot be categorically identified as an evil, is an authoritarian move itself and thus endangers democracy.

The FPI is an Islamic organization, but the behavior of its members represents vigilantism, which takes form in the way they attempt to take the law into their own hands. This is a common phenomenon apparent in societies in crisis, where the state is incapable of taking care of public affairs.

In their book Vigilante Politics, Jon Rosenbaum and Peter Sederberg classify vigilantism into three types.

First, crime-control vigilantism, which aims at overcoming rampant crime in society such as the case with the Esquadrao de Morte (Death Squad) in Brazil during the 1970s. The '€œMysterious hitmen'€ secret operation during the Soeharto era in the 1980s is another example.

Second, social group control vigilantism, which is intended to safeguard interests, authority or superiority of a value system belonging to a particular group such as Ku Klux Klan in the US.

Third, regime control vigilantism, which is established for power take over from an existing regime, such as seen in the Costa Rica Independence Movement. The FPI can be categorized as social group control vigilantism.

Founded in the wake of Soeharto'€™s resignation in 1998, this group'€™s mission is '€œamar ma'€™ruf, nahi munkar'€ (enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong). The assumption is clear. The principle values of Islam, as the ultimate religion, are under siege while the state is simply too powerless to fight for them.

It is the Muslims that should fight against the enemies, by using anything deemed necessary, including violence for the supremacy of Islamic values in society.

The FPI'€™s name and banner clearly indicate this spirit. Although it can be positive in theory, as seen in the story of Robin Hood, generally speaking vigilantism is considered negative.

The main problem with vigilantes, including the FPI, is the claim that they know the ultimate truth and have the right to impose it on others. They perceive themselves as '€œSuper-Muslims'€ who have the authority to protect the world order or restore it from chaos.

Vigilantism also tends to be Machiavellian: The end justifies the means.

Although it can be effective in the short term as a way to overcome crisis, vigilantism will only render social order dysfunctional in the long run.

Vigilantism should be addressed properly by strict enforcement of the law. The use of bigger authoritarianism to get rid of smaller authoritarianism only paves the way for ultimate authoritarianism.

The 2013 Mass Organization Law gives excessive authority to the state and undermines people'€™s freedom of association, which contradicts democracy.

Why, after almost seven decades of independence, does the nature of the relationship between the state and the people remain the same as it was during colonial times, where citizens were seen as potential enemies and could be scrutinized at every level?

Instead of being enforced, even if to dissolve such anti-democratic groups like the FPI, to me, the problematic Mass Organization Law needs to be repealed or at least revised. If it is justifiable for the state to dissolve the FPI today but what will prevent it from dissolving other organizations by using the same pretext in the future?

Since the FPI is a legal organization, the state could not just simply disband it. However, every single law violation committed by FPI members and its leaders, such as their persecution of Ahmadis, frequent banning of churches and the recent violence in Kendal, should be brought to justice.

Everyone should play by the same rules. This is the real challenge with regards to reports saying that there are many powerful figures behind the FPI. Everybody knows this and that is why the FPI is free to launch its campaign despite mounting concerns and public protests.

When society is in crisis and the state fails to perform its duties, especially in relation to law enforcement, it is highly possible that other FPI-like groups will resurface in different versions if the FPI is disbanded.

Democracy is not something fixed, ready to use, out there for us to reach. It is an ideal based on the principles of freedom, equality and justice. Developing democracy through an authoritarian process will finally kill democracy itself.

Vigilantism should not be tolerated. But disbandment of the FPI or other groups will not solve the root cause of the problem.

Democracy teaches us not to negate the rights of others, including our opponents.

The writer is a lecturer at the Center for Religious and Cross-Cultural Studies (CRCS) Graduate Program, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta.