T

he Jakarta gubernatorial election has certainly gained nationwide and even international interest. And rightly so, given its national, and potentially global, implications.

It might be a bit of a stretch to say the Jakarta election may have a potential global impact.

However, with Islamophobia and the victory of right-wing politicians in the West, a positive case, especially in the country with the largest Muslim population in the world, is badly needed.

The gubernatorial election in Indonesia’s capital is thus among today’s strongest tests and a potential model for the perceived “compatibility” between Islam and democracy.

Indonesia has always had a very open and pluralistic Muslim population. Social and political issues such as non-Muslim leaders, interreligious marriages and apostasy, highly sensitive issues in other Muslim-majority countries, had been practiced relatively without much problem in the past.

It is only now that we see a very politically motivated religious narrative to oppose a non-Muslim leader. While the controversy has caused concern it is indeed timely.

Indonesia has many Islamic scholars with solid political theological understandings of the Quran that can be exported to other Muslim-majority nations attempting democracy.

Some scholars have raised interpretations that Muslims are banned from electing non-Muslims as leaders, while others such as Quraish Shihab have said a non-Muslim leader is possible and legitimate.

This first litmus test on Indonesian democracy vis-à-vis political Islam stands to have reverberations to global politics.

If Indonesia passes the test with a peaceful Jakarta election and its aftermath, it can prove Islamophobia wrong in the West, and can be a model for other Muslim-majority nations.

If Anies Baswedan won, Jakarta would not apply sharia overnight — as some accuse and which Anies has denied. The political groups behind Anies and he himself are way too pragmatic. The only lingering problem would be the continued presence of hard-line groups around the governor if Anies won.

Both the incumbent, Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama, and Anies are eerily similar yet starkly different at the same time.

Ahok and Anies are from minority ethnic groups that are not really “indigenous”; one is an ethnic Chinese and the latter of Arab descent.

Both are very politically ambitious. Ahok has often explicitly said he aims to be president. Anies, while less explicit, has shown implicit but strong aspirations to be president from long ago.

Neither are latched on to any particular political party or ideological lines for that matter. Ahok has moved from one party to the next since his early political career in East Belitung.

The same goes for Anies. Both see political parties as mere vehicles for their personal political aspirations. However, the similarities probably stop here.

Ahok rose through the political ladder from the bottom. He started his career as a lawmaker in East Belitung before becoming regent, and then ran for Bangka Belitung governor, but lost.

He then went into national politics by getting elected to the House of Representatives.

Anies, on the other hand, is good at jumping steps. He sought a nomination for president at the Democratic Party convention with no prior formal political experience, and he continues to defy the odds by gaining political positions without climbing the ladder.

What difference will this make who wins in the second round of Jakarta election?

In terms of programs and policies, there will probably be no glaring differences between the two.

Both camps accuse the other of copying each other’s programs and campaign promises, but it is rather ineffective and unfair to compare the two based on their campaign pledges.

Ahok as the incumbent has programs and results, while Anies has none. The question is who can run the programs most effectively.

The principal impact of this election on national politics will be long term — the political culture on the alleged use of sectarian, mainly ethnic and religious, issues.

Officially, Anies certainly did not run on a religious platform. However, he is quite clearly the first centerpiece politician who has given loud hard-line groups and figures respect and political credence.

In the end there may be no immediate drastic changes to Jakarta, whoever comes out the winner.

However, if Ahok loses, the loss will serve as a steep learning curve for political parties and politicians that sectarian issues are potent tools to “kill” the tracks of a political opponent even if he has a relatively good track record.

A longer term implication would be to a certain degree the “cooptation” of Indonesia’s political Islam by the framework of hard-line Islamist narratives, which was previously not a visible part of Indonesia.

Ahok losing sends a signal that part of the populace agrees that non-Muslim leaders are illegitimate.

All in all, this is indeed a very important election.

Whoever wins, Indonesians at their social and cultural roots remain pluralistic and tolerant.

The next litmus tests will be the gubernatorial elections across Java, heading to the 2019 presidential election.
_____________________________

The writer is a researcher at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta. The views expressed are his own.