Its
mainly peaceful transition to democracy over the last 15 years has made
Indonesia a shining light for political reform in the developing world. The
fact that it is also the world’s most populous Muslim nation makes Indonesia
glow even brighter in the eyes of the West, which has struggled for more than a
decade against Islamic extremism
But as with many
countries in the region — Thailand being the most prominent example — Indonesia’s democracy remains fragile. A troubling
trend of religious intolerance and a failure by the leadership to uphold
constitutional guarantees of pluralism threaten to undermine the progress made
since the end of President Suharto’s military-backed authoritarian rule in
1998.
And though the
Indonesian Army is constrained by laws designed to curb its power, if the
country’s elected leaders fail to take steps to protect Indonesia’s pluralist
foundations, the army could reassert itself by playing a more muscular role in
politics — as it did before. As Juwono Sudarsono, a former defense minister,
said to me, “The army may have to come forward and make sure that democracy
works.”
As if to underline
this point, the head of the Army Strategic Reserve Command, Lt. Gen. Gatot
Nurmantyo, recently voiced doubts about the course of democracy. “The many,” he
said, “are not necessarily right.” Similarly, Budi Susilo Soepandji, head of
the National Resilience Institute, a military research institute, said
“excessive freedom” promoting “radical ideologies” had begun to undermine the
country’s bedrock values of pluralism. Those in close touch with military
thinking like Sudarsono say the army is deeply concerned about the government’s
failure to curb religious extremism and corruption.
Violent attacks on
religious minorities are on the rise, sowing widespread insecurity. The Setara
Institute, a nongovernmental organization, has measured successive increases in
the number of violent attacks against religious minorities since 2007. In 2013,
there were violent clashes between Shiites and Sunnis in East Java, continued
persecution of the tiny Ahmadiyya Muslim sect in West Java, and the forced
closure of Christian churches on the outskirts of Jakarta.
Religious extremism
in Indonesia is a byproduct of parochial politics. Laws that ban the defamation
of religion or prevent the building of new places of worship that are not
mosques allow self-serving politicians to appeal to the Muslim base for votes
by propagating hatred of minority Islamist sects or shutting down churches.
Although more than 80 percent of Indonesians are Muslims, millions of
Christians and Hindus, as well as minority Muslim sects such as Shiites and
Ahmadis, have the constitutional right to freedom of worship.
It’s hard to roll
back this kind of prejudice when national leaders refuse to sanction or disown
narrow-minded local politicians and officials. The religious affairs minister,
Suryadharma Ali, has defended attacks against minority Muslim sects, saying he
understands the anger of the majority Sunni community. Home Affairs Minister
Gamawan Fauzi has described the “Islamic Defenders Front,” a militant group
that has attacked premises serving alcohol, as a “national asset.”
The government has
been disappointing in other areas as well. Indonesia is on par with Egypt and
Albania in levels of corruption, according to Transparency International. The jails
are full of corrupt officials, including a former chief judge of the
constitutional court. And though elections are held regularly, the system
favors entrenched elites and interest groups.
Democracy is widely
believed to be more procedural than substantial. President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono, elected in 2004 on the strength of his reformist military
credentials, has shown a tendency to avoid taking bold initiatives. Problems
have festered on his watch.
Ahead of
presidential elections in July, opinion polls suggest that Indonesians favor a
populist leader, Joko Widodo, a former furniture maker who was elected governor
of Jakarta. But Jokowi, as he is known, is untried on the national stage. While
he is seen as effective against corruption, there is no evidence that as a
Muslim who once flirted with membership in an Islamic party he can roll back
the tide of intolerance.
The current
situation has a historical parallel. Indonesia was a thriving if rambunctious
democracy in the mid-1950s, but the erratic nature of President Sukarno’s
leadership and threats to the integrity of the state from an Islamic rebellion
alarmed the army, led to the imposition of “guided democracy,” and eventually
to army-backed rule after 1966. Much like the situation in the 1950s, today’s
combination of poor civilian leadership and weak protection of minorities has
fanned intolerance.
The army no longer
wields real political power, but it remains influential and could make a
comeback. As the country’s strongest institution, it is still widely admired.
Traditionally, the army has a healthy disregard for the quality of civilian
government and has prided itself as a source of leadership.
Although the days
are gone when military officers sat in Parliament or were stationed in every
village, the army still has its fingers deep in the political pie through a
network of influential retired officers. The sitting president is a former
general. A few former generals are positioning themselves to run for the
presidency in July. One leading contender, Prabowo Subianto, is a former
Special Forces commander with a questionable human rights record.
Faced with a choice
between divisive and corrupt civilian politicians or strong military leaders
who ensure that pluralism is respected and government delivers, Indonesians may
not be averse to a firm hand on the tiller — as long as it is cloaked in the
trappings of democracy.
Michael
Vatikiotis is Asia regional director of the Center for Humanitarian Dialogue.
No comments:
Post a Comment