A

recent Constitutional Court (MK) ruling that introduced more morality into the law has been wrongly interpreted as another victory for human rights.

The decision has been misleadingly interpreted, as the court rejected criminalization of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgenders (LGBT).

Sad to say, it is not a victory for human rights. The court has actually remained mum about the substance of the petition, such as, whether it is constitutionally justifiable to throw those who engage in anal sex or adulterers in jail. Rather, the decision only examines the surface or the procedural aspect of the petition. Meaning, just suppose the embattled House of Representatives perceives this as an opportunity to fix its shattered image, then it may very likely be picked up.

As this year’s race for the Jakarta governorship showed, given that the incentive to take sides with conservatives appears to be greater, it should be seen as nothing more than another sign for those who care about human rights as an urgent call to think more strategically or merely brace for worse to come. For starters, this case is part of a series and will not be the last, for sure; telltale signs confirm the robustness of populist-conservatism in Indonesian politics today.

The movement is no longer only based on religious values that appeal to a narrow support base; it has shrewdly projected itself as a movement based on “modern values,” whatever they may be. Meaning, they are no different from the hyper-conservative groups such as those in Western society, such as the United States with their freedom of speech rhetoric as a deceptive rallying point for an anti-gay agenda or their furtive embrace of the right to life to nullify women’s right to have control over their own bodies.

For instance, one of the petitioners calling itself the Family Love Alliance (AILA) that, again, wittily (ab)used the neutral “language” of modernity, such as, family values, and put a highly educated woman, the professor Euis Sunarti of the Bogor Institute of Agriculture (IPB), at the helm.

Compared with the brutally religious-cum-brawn-over-brain insignia of the Islam Defenders Front (FPI) that was once the hallmark of the dark ages in Western history, it all blatantly caters to Indonesia’s burgeoning profanely educated middle class whose political identity may be undecided.

Again, the furtive nature of this maneuver to dilute rational public discourse is also being emphasized by pseudo-scientific statements launched by a myriad of so-called experts. They mischievously exploit the fragile state of public awareness of scientific order of the day. In this respect, Dadang Hawari of the University of Indonesia is toying with the relativism of scientific truth by insinuating that the American Psychological Association is prone to the lobbying power of the gay community.

Apparently, the professor, who is also a well-known televangelist, knows how to shape public opinion to his favor all too well by directing his audience to a world of make-believe where homosexuality can easily be cured through mantra chanting, better known as praying.

The same applies even to Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) deputy secretary-general Amirsyah, an academic at the Jakarta State Islamic University (UIN), the nation’s most respected Islamic institute of higher education, eschews the religious argument in favor of the secular one whereby marriage is a heterosexual union in a family and, therefore, wants to violate human rights in the name of family.

[Like] Tina Turner famously put it [...] what has MUI got to do with it?

What is most alarming from this case is that it exposes the fragility of our national secular education; it is susceptible to unwelcome mumbo-jumbo cloaked in a scientific mantle.

A different yet related brouhaha is the recent controversy of the measles-rubella vaccine that eventually prompted the MUI to issue “religious approval.”

As Tina Turner famously put it, but this time around: instead of love, what has the MUI got to do with it? To be sure, this is a very worrying and disturbing signal for both reason and sanity in Indonesia’s political debate.

Bluntly put, it is a call to start dealing with all this insanity in a programmatic frame of action. Not to mention how fascism marched through Europe in the not-so-distant past, the most recent Jakarta election supposedly confirmed there is no such thing as a silent majority.

Rather, an organized, intimidating minority is a surefire way of getting to the hearts and minds of unsuspecting voters.

Suffice to say; this is a call to arms. First, should we worry about the future of reason in our national life, it should be translated into a national call for a fellowship of concerned, like-minded citizens across the political spectrum, in all walks of life and, certainly, in all educational, societal and professional status.

This is a reasonable demand to counter the black forces that have time and again showcased themselves as not only well-oiled machinery with strong financial backing, but also fully entrenched in a variety of guises.

Thus, it aims for a longer-term objective and not in the mold of a reactionary that allows it to systematically develop and implement a plan to achieve and defend the goals. While it is understandable to lament that this is something that is too much to ask just for the sake of simply maintaining decent public debate to take over the reins, but, as one of the “flaws” of democracy, it continually requires a robust and healthy marketplace of ideas to ensure a free, rational and civilized competition.

Simply put, it asks the reasonable to voluntarily sacrifice themselves for the greater good that makes sure that the marketplace can consistently yield reasoned outcomes. The stakes are just too high for a subdued response.

As this case of LGBT rights shows, the status of reason in our public sphere is hanging in the balance. It is a now or never moment.
____________________________

The writer is founding editor of Indonesian Journal of International & Comparative Law, the Institute for Migrant Rights’ flagship journal. The views expressed are his own.