A

DPARA>The Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI) strikes again. This time, the encompassing body of a major Islamic organization in the country issued a legal opinion (fatwa) that abstention in the upcoming general elections is religiously prohibited (haram). With this fatwa the MUI hopes that eligible Muslim voters will cast votes in the elections. This, in their view, will make the existence of national leadership guaranteed.

Taking the above viewpoint into consideration, it seems unlikely that the fatwa emerged from partisan political interests - though the possibility is always there, knowing that the MUI is not an entirely politics-free institution. Its fatwa committee chairman is an adviser to the president and former National Awakening Party (PKB) politician, while its secretary-general is a member of parliament representing the Golkar party.

In the meantime, almost everybody knew that not too long ago Hidayat Nurwahid, chairman of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) and one of the most important figures in the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) had asked MUI to issue a fatwa abstention is haram. Hidayat may have been lured into doing so, realizing the fact that abstention has become a growing trend in a number of the recently held regional elections. In his view, unless necessary measures are taken, it has the potential to negatively impact on the upcoming elections.

Regardless of the circumstances, many believe the fatwa had been formulated out of a noble concern. Undoubtedly, it is intended to serve Indonesia's national interests. If my reading on the situation in Padang Panjang, West Sumatra - where MUI functionaries met and debated the issue - is correct, many in the leadership believe such a fatwa is necessary. In the context of the perceived "threat" - the growing trend of abstention - the fatwa can be regarded as a religious instrument to ensure the continuation of the country's national leadership.

While the logic for the issuance of the fatwa is well taken, it nonetheless sparked unnecessary controversy and confusion. In the first place, the fatwa has rekindled the never-ending and often unproductive debates regarding the proper relationship between Islam and politics. The fact that the fatwa deals with an individual's political right, only suggests the encompassing and hegemonic nature of MUI's perception on this particular issue: as if Islam must regulate, and apply legal standing to, every aspect of life.

The fatwa also creates confusion as it applies a legal ruling such as haram to this particular issue (abstention). The confusion lies in the fact that such a ruling bears certain consequences: Those who do not vote in the general elections have committed a sin, and therefore must be punished. In this regard, it is only logical to wonder what sort of punishment is likely to be inflicted upon those individuals. Since the fatwa is applicable to Muslims only, a question can also be raised whether the Divine has actually treated Indonesians differently. Should this confusion fully play out, it could lead to a bizarre discourse regarding the proper place of Islam in society.

More importantly, one can also draw a conclusion that by issuing such a fatwa MUI is actually demonstrating its inability to act wisely and decently where priority serves as its fundamental point of departure. Abstention is not a priority issue. In fact, in a country in which democracy has only recently been cherished and upheld, abstention is not an issue at all. It is part of the process toward a more consolidated and contextualized democracy.

Of course one needs to be concerned with the growing tendency of many voters not to cast votes. There is no doubt that for some parties, the growing trend of abstention has them worried. It may hamper their partisan interests. Yet, the MUI should not regard abstention as a cause. On the contrary, abstention should be seen as a public response to the current political practices where they are so disenchanted with many of those being put on the ballot. Therefore, instead of forcing voters to vote by using a divine instrument, the MUI should question the quality and the availability of choices of those who vie for power. This too, however, need not be conveyed through a fatwa. Simple persuasion and suggestion which consists of a religiously spirited statement would invite respect rather than a threatening verdict.

Aware that a fatwa is not a legally binding opinion, it is doubtful that Muslim voters will honor it. Because of that, the MUI leadership could choose to recall it. Having second thoughts is human, and therefore permissible in Islam.