T

he Islam Defenders Front (FPI) has been in the headlines frequently of late and for all the wrong reasons. The headlines always feature the same few words: protest, radical, extreme, violent and, of course, Islam.

So it was to no one'€™s surprise when the ever-controversial acting Jakarta governor Basuki '€œAhok'€ Tjahaja Purnama proposed disbanding the FPI. Not unprecedented.

The move is not only appreciated by the majority of the citizens sick and tired of the FPI'€™s antics; the National Police also seems keen to respond to the acting governor'€™s challenge. However, the ultimate question would be: will disbanding or banning the organization mean the end of the FPI? Or will it mean the end of democracy? More importantly, will it be a solution, or will it ignite new problems?

A view popular among the people is that that the banning of the FPI will mean an end to the violence that the FPI has been conducting over the years.

This opinion is heard often on social media, the argument being that not only the FPI but also other organizations may then be reluctant to use force to express their opinion. The National Police would also favor this move, as it would be a chance to show '€œwho'€™s the man'€.

On the other hand, organizations, and the FPI especially, are driven by a belief, by an idea, by a principle. Disbanding the organization does not mean that every member will then willingly or unwillingly shake off their ideology. It would mean that they would perform secretly.

It would mean that they would believe they had no obligation to obey the law, as they would not exist according to the law itself. Let alone difficult to track, FPI members would be difficult to find.

They would be hidden, yet we would all know of their existence. An underground organization that came into prominence for its violence is by no means a sign of good things to come. Not to mention that the act of banning would not be viewed positively by the members and the supporters of the FPI and could lead to further protests and chaos.

The ideal solution may be to impose punishments and restrictions. Imprisoning violent and provocative members is a tempting step, but not the most effective.

A better approach may be to strip members of the FPI of some of their rights. A simple example would be restricting or limiting their orations, especially after their anarchic protests. The FPI also needs to be monitored tightly and be given some kind of probation.

I do want to take sides in this matter, but I would like to offer readers a different perspective, rather than reaching for the easiest solution and overlooking what may happen in the aftermath of a ban.

Eriz Ageng Wicaksono
Jakarta