Theoretically, political parties and movements are different but sometimes are in collusion to reap the biggest benefit possible. While parties tend to organize on the basis of numbers, movements organize themselves on the basis of beliefs. Electoral success and therefore numbers matter to most parties thus it entails a tendency to be inclusionary and to compromise principles more readily than movements would. They mobilize most extensively just before elections and if elected, it is likely to subside.
By contrast, movements tend to be more committed, more uncompromising, and sometimes more exclusionary. They also tend to view mobilization as an end in itself, a source of creativity, empowerment, and identity-building rather than simply a route to achieving power. Thus movements tend to have more confrontational, spontaneous and open-ended mobilization than that of political parties.
These differences may be mutually advantageous. While allying with social movements is likely to heighten parties’ aura of being committed, egalitarian, and grassroots-based, the movements which ally themselves with political parties may achieve longevity, national prominence and political access. But these differences can also become source of tension. For example, the tendency of movements to use militancy, violent agitations and non-negotiable offer are in contrast with the methods and tendency of political parties to make compromises for electoral benefits. Thus, when this situation occurs, split is the most likely result.
On the basis of these theoretical facts, the declaration of the PKB as a green party recently needs to be scrutinized further. Because PKB is a political party while its new political agenda on the concept of environmental preservation is more movement-like theme.
Two reasons can be described here why the PKB suddenly took the issue of environmental preservation as its main political agenda. The first is the increasing challenge from other Muslim parties like the PPP, PAN, PKS and PKNU to win the support from Indonesian Muslims in the upcoming general elections. While the PAN and the PKS have built their own support base through their party cadres, the PPP, the PKNU and the PKB share similar background. They were born out of a single community, the Nahdatul Ulama community.
Thus if they have to fight it out in the elections to win the support of the NU community, the most likely result is the split of those votes into three opposing parties. It needs to be noted here that while the PKB and the PKNU were splinter groups from the PPP, the PKNU is born out of dissatisfaction of several PKB’s cadres over its leadership.
Second is the ambition of the PKB leadership to expand its support base. They understand that the party cannot solely rely on its traditional supporters, the NU community, when they have to fight it out against the PPP and the PKNU. The need to increase PKB’s political tally in the 2009 general elections forced the PKB leadership to take a new strategy. Thus by taking the issue of environmental preservation it hopes to expand its support base and to embrace wider audiences. Moreover, the PKB seems to describe itself as a “committed, egalitarian and grassroots-based” political party.
Environmental issues are usually voiced by NGOs to challenge governmental policies. By taking the stance of a movement, the PKB is unconsciously transforming itself as an opposition group. In a political system where the word “opposition” is still regarded as a taboo, PKB’s new avatar should be welcomed.
It should be noted, however, that the PKB should be careful in taking up environmental issues and not to be trapped in the interests of the NGOs and foreign agencies as Abdurrahman Wahid has rightly said. Because when they are indulged in popular environmental issues but unable to propose any solution, the PKB would lost the momentum it builds and get immersed in the sea of conflicting interests.
For a party to take a popular issue usually brought by a movement or NGO is interesting. Moreover, environmental issues have now become a global concern. Even an Al Gore, ex-US Vice President, took this kind of issue to global audiences and received wide support. Thus the decision by the PKB to take this issue as its political manifesto in the next election should be regarded as a huge step. We should now wait and see how this decision could be implemented into concrete actions.
If an Al Gore got an Oscar for his work on environmental issues, who knows that the PKB would get additional support in the 2009 elections.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Gus Dur, the PKB and a “Green Party”
Ex-Indonesia's President, Abdurrahman Wahid or Gus Dur, has been known for his wits and his ability to coin and popularize new vocabularies. Vocabularies like kyai khos, kyai sepuh and kyai Langitan (the chosen Muslim preachers, the senior Muslim preachers and the Muslim preachers from Langitan, respectively) were coined by Gus Dur and became popular not only among his followers, the Nahdatul Ulama community, but also among Indonesians in general. The latest is his reference to kyai kampung – village Muslim preachers, as oppose to kyai sepuh.
According to Gus Dur while most of those kyai sepuh have become aloof and created distance or barriers from their followers, kyai kampung are more egalitarian and closer to their followers. And in view of growing competition among Muslim parties to build their support base, kyai kampung is meant to intimate the connection of the National Awakening Party (PKB) to its electorate at grass root level. By utilizing the kyai kampung PKB believes that it will create better understanding about its core constituents and hopes to convert this situation into prospective voters who will vote for the PKB in the 2009 general elections. Early this month, the PKB, by using the popularity of Gus Dur, invited thousands of kyai kampung to attend a sermon by Gus Dur in his residence in Ciganjur, South Jakarta. The success of the program prompted the PKB leadership to make it as PKB’s monthly program.
While kyai kampung will help the PKB to reassert itself as the party of traditional Muslims, PKB needs to expand its support base. Thus the declaration of the PKB as partai hijau (green party).
While hijau or green color connotes to Islam, the declaration of PKB as a Green Party is a reference to the greenery, the environment, the nature. The PKB wanted to create more awareness among Indonesians about the degrading condition of global and local environment and the importance of environmental preservation.
It is a public secret that environmental management is absence in Indonesia. Both the government and the Indonesian people seem to be lacking of attention on the importance of managing and preserving the environment. The urge and desire to reap immediate and bigger economic benefits have put their conscience in the backseat. The results are various, mostly man-made, natural calamities such as floods, land slides, drought, forest fire as well as the unending crisis of Lapindo’s dangerous mud flood in Sidoarjo, East Java. Besides the huge amount of lives and materials that have been lost, these calamities have also left the environment in a very bad shape and open to further calamities.
Thus, realizing this degrading environmental situation and the lack of attention to it, the PKB wanted to project itself as a green party and put environmental preservation as its national agenda. Two strategies have been proposed to support this idea. First, the PKB will suggest the amendment of the Constitution, or at least the national law, on environment, forestry and land as well as actively criticizing government’s policies through the eyes of environemental preservation. Secondly, the PKB will pose itself as a party-movement that advocates the needs of environmental preservation by declaring the PKB as a green party. By declaring itself as a green party, the PKB will pioneer the movement to save and preserve the environment.
While the first strategy will take longer course to materialize, the second strategy has already been started. This week, the PKB chose Bali, the Island of Gods, as a place to declare the PKB as a green party. Besides inviting all its regional leaderships, the PKB also invited various local as well as international NGOs like the Green Peace to be a part of this declaration ceremony. Similarly, as a concrete action of this grand idea, the PKB’s General Secretary, Lukman Edy, said that the PKB will order its cadres to plant at least one tree around their residences or in barren areas so that to create responsibility towards environmental preservation.
From various references on kyai (Muslim preacher) to the decision to choose hijau (green) as the color of life or environment, the PKB under the aegis of Gus Dur wants to emulate itself as an inclusive party. Not only the PKB wants to cater to its traditional supporters, it also wants to expand itself into a wider spectrum by choosing environment as its theme. The PKB wants to offer a pro-active solution to the environmental problems. Means that the PKB does not only offer solutions to preserve the environment but it also takes leading position in the movement. It remains to be seen, however, how this grand idea will materialize. Preserving our environment is a necessity and PKB’s grand idea must be seen as a breakthrough that need the full support of everyone regardless of their political affiliations.
According to Gus Dur while most of those kyai sepuh have become aloof and created distance or barriers from their followers, kyai kampung are more egalitarian and closer to their followers. And in view of growing competition among Muslim parties to build their support base, kyai kampung is meant to intimate the connection of the National Awakening Party (PKB) to its electorate at grass root level. By utilizing the kyai kampung PKB believes that it will create better understanding about its core constituents and hopes to convert this situation into prospective voters who will vote for the PKB in the 2009 general elections. Early this month, the PKB, by using the popularity of Gus Dur, invited thousands of kyai kampung to attend a sermon by Gus Dur in his residence in Ciganjur, South Jakarta. The success of the program prompted the PKB leadership to make it as PKB’s monthly program.
While kyai kampung will help the PKB to reassert itself as the party of traditional Muslims, PKB needs to expand its support base. Thus the declaration of the PKB as partai hijau (green party).
While hijau or green color connotes to Islam, the declaration of PKB as a Green Party is a reference to the greenery, the environment, the nature. The PKB wanted to create more awareness among Indonesians about the degrading condition of global and local environment and the importance of environmental preservation.
It is a public secret that environmental management is absence in Indonesia. Both the government and the Indonesian people seem to be lacking of attention on the importance of managing and preserving the environment. The urge and desire to reap immediate and bigger economic benefits have put their conscience in the backseat. The results are various, mostly man-made, natural calamities such as floods, land slides, drought, forest fire as well as the unending crisis of Lapindo’s dangerous mud flood in Sidoarjo, East Java. Besides the huge amount of lives and materials that have been lost, these calamities have also left the environment in a very bad shape and open to further calamities.
Thus, realizing this degrading environmental situation and the lack of attention to it, the PKB wanted to project itself as a green party and put environmental preservation as its national agenda. Two strategies have been proposed to support this idea. First, the PKB will suggest the amendment of the Constitution, or at least the national law, on environment, forestry and land as well as actively criticizing government’s policies through the eyes of environemental preservation. Secondly, the PKB will pose itself as a party-movement that advocates the needs of environmental preservation by declaring the PKB as a green party. By declaring itself as a green party, the PKB will pioneer the movement to save and preserve the environment.
While the first strategy will take longer course to materialize, the second strategy has already been started. This week, the PKB chose Bali, the Island of Gods, as a place to declare the PKB as a green party. Besides inviting all its regional leaderships, the PKB also invited various local as well as international NGOs like the Green Peace to be a part of this declaration ceremony. Similarly, as a concrete action of this grand idea, the PKB’s General Secretary, Lukman Edy, said that the PKB will order its cadres to plant at least one tree around their residences or in barren areas so that to create responsibility towards environmental preservation.
From various references on kyai (Muslim preacher) to the decision to choose hijau (green) as the color of life or environment, the PKB under the aegis of Gus Dur wants to emulate itself as an inclusive party. Not only the PKB wants to cater to its traditional supporters, it also wants to expand itself into a wider spectrum by choosing environment as its theme. The PKB wants to offer a pro-active solution to the environmental problems. Means that the PKB does not only offer solutions to preserve the environment but it also takes leading position in the movement. It remains to be seen, however, how this grand idea will materialize. Preserving our environment is a necessity and PKB’s grand idea must be seen as a breakthrough that need the full support of everyone regardless of their political affiliations.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
PPP: Consolidating Muslim Politics?
From 30 January to 3 February 2007, the biggest Muslim party in Indonesia, the Unity Development Party (Partai Persatuan Pembangunan, PPP), is holding its Sixth National Conference in Jakarta. Besides electing new party president, the party is also preparing new strategies to face the 2009 General Elections which is two years away.
Having learnt from the failures in the previous elections, the party is eager to improve its performance in the upcoming elections. Faced with fractured party politics, the party needs to find a strategy to consolidate the diverse elements in the society for its advantage. With other Muslim parties struggling to consolidate themselves, it is a perfect moment for the PPP to reformulate and reposition itself as the sole platform for Muslim politics.
If we look back at the history of party politics in Indonesia, we will find that in the 1950s, there was Masyumi (Majelis Syuro Muslimin Indonesia), a party created by the Japanese government in 1943 to become a common platform for Muslim politics. Diverse elements of Muslim politics were represented in this party. The NU, the Muhammadiyah, the Syarikat Islam as well as other Muslim groups merged into this body. Masyumi became a common platform for Indonesian Muslims to voice their political aspirations.
However, history told different story in which persisting conflict of interests in the Masyumi resulted into its split. Disappointed with the party policy, Nahdatul Ulama (NU), the biggest element in the Masyumi, decided to abandon the party to become an independent political body. This split resulted in the failure of Indonesian Muslims to win the 1955 General Elections. They failed to convert their majority number into a single, united voice in a single common platform. Masyumi secured 20.9 percent while the NU gained 18.4 percent. The biggest winner was the nationalist group under the Partai Nasional Indonesia (PNI) which gained 22.3 percent of the total votes.
Had there been no split in the Masyumi, they would have been able to win the elections.
The change of guards in the Indonesian politics in the late 1960s was followed with the change of pattern of interaction in the party politics. The multiparty system adopted in the 1950s was abandoned and a simplified party system with two political parties and one service group was introduced. The nationalists and non-Muslim groups were forced to merge into one single party called the Partai Demokrasi Indonesia (PDI) while the Islamic leaning groups like the NU, Parmusi, PSII and the Perti were merged into the Partai Pembangunan Indonesia (PPP). A service group called Golkar was established by the regime as its political vehicle to run the country.
Being a common platform for Muslim politics with Islam as its ideology, the PPP succeeded in consolidating the diverse elements of Muslim politics by securing 29 and 28 percents of the total votes in the 1977 and 1982 General Elections respectively. The success of the PPP forced the regime to introduce a common ideology, the Pancasila, as the sole national ideology for all political as well as non-political groupings to eliminate any existing emotional influence of such an ideology like Islam. This policy resulted in the significant reduction of supports for the PPP in which in the 1987 and 1992 Elections, PPP only secured 16 and 17 percents of the total votes respectively.
The absence of Islam as party ideology was one of the reasons for this poor showing. The disappointment of the NU, an important element in the PPP, towards party leadership and the allocation of seats in the Parliament were other reasons for this significant drop of support for the PPP.
Determined to regain its position as a common platform for Muslim politics, the PPP reintroduced Islam as its ideology after the fall of Suharto. But in an era of openness and pluralism, the PPP faces stiff challenges from other Muslim groups. In the last two elections, 1999 and 2004, the Muslim votes were split into diverse Islamic leaning political parties like the PKB, PAN, PKS and other small parties like PBB and PSII. PPP’s leadership failed to utilize its status as an ‘old timer’ as a unifying body for these diverse elements of Muslim politics. It only secured fourth and third position in the last two elections respectively with meager total votes of 10 to 12 percent.
With 2009 elections is two years away, can PPP consolidate Muslim politics? Will the politicians, who are always loaded with ambition and greed to grab power, understand this situation and put aside their egos for common good?
If we look back at the history of Muslim politics in Indonesia, it is unlikely that the PPP can consolidate itself as a common platform for Muslim politics in Indonesia. Even though ideology is important, it cannot guarantee that the PPP will succeed in playing a unifying role. The results of the last two elections are enough to support this statement.
The failure of Muslim politicians to see bigger picture and accept differences for the sake of common, bigger target contributed to the failure of creating a common platform for Indonesian Muslims. To avoid the same failure, honesty and good will among Muslim politicians are necessary to achieve this goal.
Thus, whoever to be elected as the new PPP’s president must understand this situation and utilize this perfect moment for the utmost benefit of the party, the Indonesian Muslims, and for the sake of the future of Indonesia.
Having learnt from the failures in the previous elections, the party is eager to improve its performance in the upcoming elections. Faced with fractured party politics, the party needs to find a strategy to consolidate the diverse elements in the society for its advantage. With other Muslim parties struggling to consolidate themselves, it is a perfect moment for the PPP to reformulate and reposition itself as the sole platform for Muslim politics.
If we look back at the history of party politics in Indonesia, we will find that in the 1950s, there was Masyumi (Majelis Syuro Muslimin Indonesia), a party created by the Japanese government in 1943 to become a common platform for Muslim politics. Diverse elements of Muslim politics were represented in this party. The NU, the Muhammadiyah, the Syarikat Islam as well as other Muslim groups merged into this body. Masyumi became a common platform for Indonesian Muslims to voice their political aspirations.
However, history told different story in which persisting conflict of interests in the Masyumi resulted into its split. Disappointed with the party policy, Nahdatul Ulama (NU), the biggest element in the Masyumi, decided to abandon the party to become an independent political body. This split resulted in the failure of Indonesian Muslims to win the 1955 General Elections. They failed to convert their majority number into a single, united voice in a single common platform. Masyumi secured 20.9 percent while the NU gained 18.4 percent. The biggest winner was the nationalist group under the Partai Nasional Indonesia (PNI) which gained 22.3 percent of the total votes.
Had there been no split in the Masyumi, they would have been able to win the elections.
The change of guards in the Indonesian politics in the late 1960s was followed with the change of pattern of interaction in the party politics. The multiparty system adopted in the 1950s was abandoned and a simplified party system with two political parties and one service group was introduced. The nationalists and non-Muslim groups were forced to merge into one single party called the Partai Demokrasi Indonesia (PDI) while the Islamic leaning groups like the NU, Parmusi, PSII and the Perti were merged into the Partai Pembangunan Indonesia (PPP). A service group called Golkar was established by the regime as its political vehicle to run the country.
Being a common platform for Muslim politics with Islam as its ideology, the PPP succeeded in consolidating the diverse elements of Muslim politics by securing 29 and 28 percents of the total votes in the 1977 and 1982 General Elections respectively. The success of the PPP forced the regime to introduce a common ideology, the Pancasila, as the sole national ideology for all political as well as non-political groupings to eliminate any existing emotional influence of such an ideology like Islam. This policy resulted in the significant reduction of supports for the PPP in which in the 1987 and 1992 Elections, PPP only secured 16 and 17 percents of the total votes respectively.
The absence of Islam as party ideology was one of the reasons for this poor showing. The disappointment of the NU, an important element in the PPP, towards party leadership and the allocation of seats in the Parliament were other reasons for this significant drop of support for the PPP.
Determined to regain its position as a common platform for Muslim politics, the PPP reintroduced Islam as its ideology after the fall of Suharto. But in an era of openness and pluralism, the PPP faces stiff challenges from other Muslim groups. In the last two elections, 1999 and 2004, the Muslim votes were split into diverse Islamic leaning political parties like the PKB, PAN, PKS and other small parties like PBB and PSII. PPP’s leadership failed to utilize its status as an ‘old timer’ as a unifying body for these diverse elements of Muslim politics. It only secured fourth and third position in the last two elections respectively with meager total votes of 10 to 12 percent.
With 2009 elections is two years away, can PPP consolidate Muslim politics? Will the politicians, who are always loaded with ambition and greed to grab power, understand this situation and put aside their egos for common good?
If we look back at the history of Muslim politics in Indonesia, it is unlikely that the PPP can consolidate itself as a common platform for Muslim politics in Indonesia. Even though ideology is important, it cannot guarantee that the PPP will succeed in playing a unifying role. The results of the last two elections are enough to support this statement.
The failure of Muslim politicians to see bigger picture and accept differences for the sake of common, bigger target contributed to the failure of creating a common platform for Indonesian Muslims. To avoid the same failure, honesty and good will among Muslim politicians are necessary to achieve this goal.
Thus, whoever to be elected as the new PPP’s president must understand this situation and utilize this perfect moment for the utmost benefit of the party, the Indonesian Muslims, and for the sake of the future of Indonesia.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Bracing the Nuclear Tide
Ever since the Iranian and the North Korean nuclear programs became the headlines and the India – US nuclear deal was inked in New Delhi in March this year that subsequently being approved unanimously by the US Congress last week, there has been a tendency among developing nations to follow the India way: building an alternative source of energy through nuclear technology.
With cheaper oil price is nowhere in sight and the possibility of expansion of the technology for peaceful purposes to even those NPT non-signatory states, the nuclear tide is surging high and fast. The latest to join the tide is the oil-rich Arab states, which declared last Sunday that they also want to acquire the technology for peaceful purposes.
Following the footpath of the Developing-8 Group, which declared its intention early this year after a summit in Bali to pursue the N-technology, the new ambition by the Arab states to pursue the same technology needs to be scrutinized. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman are known for their substantial oil resources. Under the banner of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the group announced on Sunday that it commissioned a study on setting up a common program in the area of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, which would abide by international standards and laws.
Why these oil-rich Arab states so suddenly and so eagerly want to pursue the N-technology?
If we follow the recent development in this region, there is one very important factor that bothers these Arab states: Iran.
In the past months Iran has been so defiance toward the call by the US government and its European allies to suspend the uranium enrichment to support Iranian nuclear ambition. Even though Iran insists its program is for peaceful purposes including generating electricity, but suspicion among the US government and its European allies is high that Iran is also pursuing nuclear weapon technology.
The Sunni – Shia factor is also on the table. Iran is a Shia state while Sunni Muslims are the majority in the region, including those of six Arab states. With no sign of immediate end of Sunni – Shia sectarian violence and domination of Shia party in Iraq and the overt Iranian support for the Palestinian’s Hamas-led government and the Hezbollah group in Lebanon, there is a growing worry among the Sunni states on the increasing Iran’s influence.
This Iranian factor has forced the Arab states to react. Kuwaiti columnist, Fouad al-Hashem wrote in Al-Watan newspaper that the declaration by the GCC is a clear, strong and courageous message to Iran that GCC nations will not sit and watch while Iran presses forward with its nuclear program. And with the help of their allies, these Arab states want to balance the power equation in the region by developing nuclear technology, even though they do not really need it.
It is true that double standard is apparent on the nuclear technology issue. Iran, a democratic state and a signatory of the nuclear NPT that has been religiously following the guidelines given by the international atomic body, the IAEA, has been prevented from pursuing its rightful choice to develop peaceful nuclear technology.
The US and its European allies have been arguing that Iran is not fully pursuing the technology for peaceful purposes but it intends to build a nuclear weapon technology. Reasons like Iran’s defiance to stop its uranium enrichment program and that Iran is among the largest country in the world that possesses substantial natural resources have been used as the basis of suspecting Iran’s ill intention.
On the other hand, countries like Pakistan, India and Israel, all are non-signatories of the NPT, have developed and possess nuclear technology, both for civilian and military use. Pakistan and India have declared themselves as nuclear power states while Israel has been in denial about its nuclear weapons. But the recent admission by Israeli PM Ehud Olmert in a TV interview in Germany claiming that Israel possesses nuclear weapons proved this double standard.
Asked about Iran’s nuclear program, Olmert said, “… when they [Iran] are aspiring to have nuclear weapons as America, France, Israel, Russia?”
Furthermore, with the final approval by the US Congress to a Bill on the Indo – US nuclear deal signed in March this year came this week that will allow the transfer of nuclear technology and material to India, the nuclear apartheid is even clearer.
To conclude, developing nuclear technology is the basic right of any country, be it India, Iran, Indonesia, Israel or even the Gulf countries. This is not an exclusive right of the P-5 nations. As long as the country is acting responsibly and uses the technology for peaceful purposes like generating electricity and medical research, there is no need to prevent them from acquiring such technology. The decision by the GCC to pursue the nuclear path to join the tide should not be of a worry as long as they act responsibly and for the benefit of humanity.
What is needed is strict guidelines and control by an independent international body like the IAEA with regard to the usage and development of such technology so as not to be deviated into military purposes like developing nuclear weaponry. Treaty like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is of no use when even the signatory to the treaty is prevented from developing the technology while the non-signatories of the treaty freely develop the technology.
When there is a possibility to develop cheaper, more sustainable alternative source of energy to suffice the growing, insatiable energy need, why don’t we join the tide and enjoy the ride? Concerns about a regional nuclear arms race is understandable but concerns about the benefits of the technology for humanity is also important.
With cheaper oil price is nowhere in sight and the possibility of expansion of the technology for peaceful purposes to even those NPT non-signatory states, the nuclear tide is surging high and fast. The latest to join the tide is the oil-rich Arab states, which declared last Sunday that they also want to acquire the technology for peaceful purposes.
Following the footpath of the Developing-8 Group, which declared its intention early this year after a summit in Bali to pursue the N-technology, the new ambition by the Arab states to pursue the same technology needs to be scrutinized. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman are known for their substantial oil resources. Under the banner of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the group announced on Sunday that it commissioned a study on setting up a common program in the area of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, which would abide by international standards and laws.
Why these oil-rich Arab states so suddenly and so eagerly want to pursue the N-technology?
If we follow the recent development in this region, there is one very important factor that bothers these Arab states: Iran.
In the past months Iran has been so defiance toward the call by the US government and its European allies to suspend the uranium enrichment to support Iranian nuclear ambition. Even though Iran insists its program is for peaceful purposes including generating electricity, but suspicion among the US government and its European allies is high that Iran is also pursuing nuclear weapon technology.
The Sunni – Shia factor is also on the table. Iran is a Shia state while Sunni Muslims are the majority in the region, including those of six Arab states. With no sign of immediate end of Sunni – Shia sectarian violence and domination of Shia party in Iraq and the overt Iranian support for the Palestinian’s Hamas-led government and the Hezbollah group in Lebanon, there is a growing worry among the Sunni states on the increasing Iran’s influence.
This Iranian factor has forced the Arab states to react. Kuwaiti columnist, Fouad al-Hashem wrote in Al-Watan newspaper that the declaration by the GCC is a clear, strong and courageous message to Iran that GCC nations will not sit and watch while Iran presses forward with its nuclear program. And with the help of their allies, these Arab states want to balance the power equation in the region by developing nuclear technology, even though they do not really need it.
It is true that double standard is apparent on the nuclear technology issue. Iran, a democratic state and a signatory of the nuclear NPT that has been religiously following the guidelines given by the international atomic body, the IAEA, has been prevented from pursuing its rightful choice to develop peaceful nuclear technology.
The US and its European allies have been arguing that Iran is not fully pursuing the technology for peaceful purposes but it intends to build a nuclear weapon technology. Reasons like Iran’s defiance to stop its uranium enrichment program and that Iran is among the largest country in the world that possesses substantial natural resources have been used as the basis of suspecting Iran’s ill intention.
On the other hand, countries like Pakistan, India and Israel, all are non-signatories of the NPT, have developed and possess nuclear technology, both for civilian and military use. Pakistan and India have declared themselves as nuclear power states while Israel has been in denial about its nuclear weapons. But the recent admission by Israeli PM Ehud Olmert in a TV interview in Germany claiming that Israel possesses nuclear weapons proved this double standard.
Asked about Iran’s nuclear program, Olmert said, “… when they [Iran] are aspiring to have nuclear weapons as America, France, Israel, Russia?”
Furthermore, with the final approval by the US Congress to a Bill on the Indo – US nuclear deal signed in March this year came this week that will allow the transfer of nuclear technology and material to India, the nuclear apartheid is even clearer.
To conclude, developing nuclear technology is the basic right of any country, be it India, Iran, Indonesia, Israel or even the Gulf countries. This is not an exclusive right of the P-5 nations. As long as the country is acting responsibly and uses the technology for peaceful purposes like generating electricity and medical research, there is no need to prevent them from acquiring such technology. The decision by the GCC to pursue the nuclear path to join the tide should not be of a worry as long as they act responsibly and for the benefit of humanity.
What is needed is strict guidelines and control by an independent international body like the IAEA with regard to the usage and development of such technology so as not to be deviated into military purposes like developing nuclear weaponry. Treaty like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is of no use when even the signatory to the treaty is prevented from developing the technology while the non-signatories of the treaty freely develop the technology.
When there is a possibility to develop cheaper, more sustainable alternative source of energy to suffice the growing, insatiable energy need, why don’t we join the tide and enjoy the ride? Concerns about a regional nuclear arms race is understandable but concerns about the benefits of the technology for humanity is also important.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Is Indonesia a Muslim State?
Recently, I came across this article discussing the lack of democracy in Muslim world. Citing examples on Muslims states in the Middle Eastern and Gulf region like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Oman, several African states like Libya, Egypt, Morocco and Tanzania as well as in South, Central and Southeast Asian region like Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Malaysia, it says that,
“It is hard to find a purely democratic country in the Muslim world, one that is governed by the people directly or through elected representatives. But pseudo-democracies abound and have various names: "guardian controlled," "military-based," "dictator-based," "religious-based," "unstable," "limited" and "puddle," among others.”
I cannot agree more with the statements above. Democracy is visibly lacking, or rather, if it ever exists, it is limited, unstable or controlled like in Malaysia and Iran. But there is a part in the article that made me beg to differ. It says,
“In the largest Muslim state, Indonesia, democracy is unstable. Corruption, communal riots and political clashes have plagued Indonesian democracy.”
While I agree with the fact that corruption, communal violence, political clashes and relative stability are the features of Indonesia in the post-Suharto period, but is Indonesia a Muslim state? What defines it as a Muslim state?
Is it just because the majority of its population follows the teaching of Islam and it is a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference then Indonesia is a Muslim state?
What about Suriname or say Thailand? Suriname is a member and Thailand is an observer of the OIC but the majority of their populations do not follow the teachings of Islam. Can we call them as Muslim states merely due to their association with the OIC?
Asghar Ali Engineer once wrote about Islamic state. He said that Islamic state has no Qur’anic sanctions and that, “Muslim countries claiming to be Islamic states are far from these ideals. The greatest ideal projected by the Qur'an is justice ? both in personal conduct and in distribution of wealth. It is conspicuous by its absence in the Muslim countries.”
He further explains that,
“… the Qur'an presents a concept of society, not of any state. … The Qur'an was greatly concerned with establishing a just society. It exhorted the rich to be sensitive to others' suffering and required them to redistribute their wealth and levied Zakat (alms) which was to be spent on the poor. … The Qur'an laid stress on justice and benevolence in all socio-economic matters.”
And as for the Madina state founded by the Prophet in which Islamists believe to be the ideal concept of an Islamic state, Asghar has something to say about it. He said that, “Madina was a pluralist society and there was no attempt whatsoever to impose Islam on anyone unwilling. It was `secular' in as much as plurality of religion was recognized.”
Thus it needs to emphasize here that Qur’an does not explain about an Islamic state but it gives the concept of an ideal society. Furthermore, during Prophet’s tenure as the head of Medina society there was no imposition of Islam on anyone unwilling. The Prophet had given full freedom to all Medina populace to practice their respective religions, be it Christianity or Judaism. Medina was a pluralist, secular society in the sense that there was an equidistance of respect and recognition of the variety of religion.
Now, let’s return to the question about whether Indonesia is a Muslim state or not. Before answering this question, it will be interesting to explain here the basic idea about Indonesia.
Indonesia is a country which has more than 190 million Muslims. More 80 percent of its populace follows the teachings of Islam but Indonesia never declares itself as a Muslim state. The Indonesian state is based on the idea of Pancasila (five principles) that covers the idea of a belief in God, humanitarianism, unity in diversity (pluralism), representative democracy and social justice. It is nowhere to be found in the Indonesian Constitution that mentions about Indonesia being a Muslim State.
As for the Islamists who have been fighting for the establishment of an Islamic state in Indonesia, they have been defeated both through bullets and ballots. The successful suppression of rebellion by Islamists in the turbulent days of the 1950s and the results of the democratically administered general elections in Indonesia held in 1955, 1999 and 2004 are clear proof to this conviction. In these elections, even though Islamist parties secured quite a number of votes but they never came up as a majority in a country where more than 80 percent of its populace follows Islam. Secular-nationalist and religious-nationalist parties secured better results in these elections.
The recent and current resurgence of Islamic leaning parties in Indonesian politics needs not to be worried. It is just an integral part of an evolving Indonesian democracy. The recent media coverage about the imposition of local laws based on Islamic tenets by a ruling Islamic party in their districts has been blown out of proportion to create an impression that Indonesia is controlled by Islamists. Islamists do not control Indonesia.
It must be remembered here that even though these so-called Islamic parties supported an Islamic ideology, but once they go to the masses to appeal for their votes in the elections, they choose political pragmatism over ideology. Because they know Islamism does not sale and the voters know that it is the economy, social justice, eradication of corruption and eradication of other social illness that matter the most.
Thus to say that Indonesia is a Muslim state in the same brackets as those states cited in the beginning of this article is misleading. Indonesia is not a Muslim state. But going by the suggestion about an Islamic society as explained by Asghar Ali Engineer, Indonesia is definitely going into that direction. It is still a long and winding way ahead but surely, a pluralistic Indonesia is the best ideal that all Indonesians must strive for.
“It is hard to find a purely democratic country in the Muslim world, one that is governed by the people directly or through elected representatives. But pseudo-democracies abound and have various names: "guardian controlled," "military-based," "dictator-based," "religious-based," "unstable," "limited" and "puddle," among others.”
I cannot agree more with the statements above. Democracy is visibly lacking, or rather, if it ever exists, it is limited, unstable or controlled like in Malaysia and Iran. But there is a part in the article that made me beg to differ. It says,
“In the largest Muslim state, Indonesia, democracy is unstable. Corruption, communal riots and political clashes have plagued Indonesian democracy.”
While I agree with the fact that corruption, communal violence, political clashes and relative stability are the features of Indonesia in the post-Suharto period, but is Indonesia a Muslim state? What defines it as a Muslim state?
Is it just because the majority of its population follows the teaching of Islam and it is a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference then Indonesia is a Muslim state?
What about Suriname or say Thailand? Suriname is a member and Thailand is an observer of the OIC but the majority of their populations do not follow the teachings of Islam. Can we call them as Muslim states merely due to their association with the OIC?
Asghar Ali Engineer once wrote about Islamic state. He said that Islamic state has no Qur’anic sanctions and that, “Muslim countries claiming to be Islamic states are far from these ideals. The greatest ideal projected by the Qur'an is justice ? both in personal conduct and in distribution of wealth. It is conspicuous by its absence in the Muslim countries.”
He further explains that,
“… the Qur'an presents a concept of society, not of any state. … The Qur'an was greatly concerned with establishing a just society. It exhorted the rich to be sensitive to others' suffering and required them to redistribute their wealth and levied Zakat (alms) which was to be spent on the poor. … The Qur'an laid stress on justice and benevolence in all socio-economic matters.”
And as for the Madina state founded by the Prophet in which Islamists believe to be the ideal concept of an Islamic state, Asghar has something to say about it. He said that, “Madina was a pluralist society and there was no attempt whatsoever to impose Islam on anyone unwilling. It was `secular' in as much as plurality of religion was recognized.”
Thus it needs to emphasize here that Qur’an does not explain about an Islamic state but it gives the concept of an ideal society. Furthermore, during Prophet’s tenure as the head of Medina society there was no imposition of Islam on anyone unwilling. The Prophet had given full freedom to all Medina populace to practice their respective religions, be it Christianity or Judaism. Medina was a pluralist, secular society in the sense that there was an equidistance of respect and recognition of the variety of religion.
Now, let’s return to the question about whether Indonesia is a Muslim state or not. Before answering this question, it will be interesting to explain here the basic idea about Indonesia.
Indonesia is a country which has more than 190 million Muslims. More 80 percent of its populace follows the teachings of Islam but Indonesia never declares itself as a Muslim state. The Indonesian state is based on the idea of Pancasila (five principles) that covers the idea of a belief in God, humanitarianism, unity in diversity (pluralism), representative democracy and social justice. It is nowhere to be found in the Indonesian Constitution that mentions about Indonesia being a Muslim State.
As for the Islamists who have been fighting for the establishment of an Islamic state in Indonesia, they have been defeated both through bullets and ballots. The successful suppression of rebellion by Islamists in the turbulent days of the 1950s and the results of the democratically administered general elections in Indonesia held in 1955, 1999 and 2004 are clear proof to this conviction. In these elections, even though Islamist parties secured quite a number of votes but they never came up as a majority in a country where more than 80 percent of its populace follows Islam. Secular-nationalist and religious-nationalist parties secured better results in these elections.
The recent and current resurgence of Islamic leaning parties in Indonesian politics needs not to be worried. It is just an integral part of an evolving Indonesian democracy. The recent media coverage about the imposition of local laws based on Islamic tenets by a ruling Islamic party in their districts has been blown out of proportion to create an impression that Indonesia is controlled by Islamists. Islamists do not control Indonesia.
It must be remembered here that even though these so-called Islamic parties supported an Islamic ideology, but once they go to the masses to appeal for their votes in the elections, they choose political pragmatism over ideology. Because they know Islamism does not sale and the voters know that it is the economy, social justice, eradication of corruption and eradication of other social illness that matter the most.
Thus to say that Indonesia is a Muslim state in the same brackets as those states cited in the beginning of this article is misleading. Indonesia is not a Muslim state. But going by the suggestion about an Islamic society as explained by Asghar Ali Engineer, Indonesia is definitely going into that direction. It is still a long and winding way ahead but surely, a pluralistic Indonesia is the best ideal that all Indonesians must strive for.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
A Skeptical Note on Bush’s Recent Visit to Indonesia
On Monday, 20 November 2006, the US President, George W. Bush was on a brief visit to Indonesia, the largest Muslim populated country in the world. He was in an Asian tour from Singapore, Vietnam and Indonesia. Indonesia was his last stopover before returning home. Accompanied by U.S. Secretary of State Condollezza Rice, Bush held a meeting with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, followed by a discussion with several prominent Indonesian scholars and thinkers in economics, educations, politics and regional development. The visit was only six hours, but the preparation for and reactions to the visit had become headlines in the Indonesian media for weeks.
To welcome the six hours visit, the Indonesian government must spent a whopping 6 billion Indonesian Rupiah (more than half a million US Dollar), not a small amount of money for a country like Indonesia, just to build two unused helipads especially meant for President Bush’s arrival in Bogor in the vicinity of Indonesia’s famous Bogor Botanical Garden, a major center for botanical research that host many exotic plants. And to make matter worse, the Bush entourage did not land there and instead the landed in a sport stadium nearby and used motorcade to arrive at Bogor Presidential Palace to meet President Yudhoyono. The helipad is a total waste of taxpayer’s money and at the same time, it poses some danger to the ecosystem in the Garden.
Civic groups have called the preparations for Bush’s short visit in Indonesia simply overwhelming. The security was over-prepared, the guards were over-acting and no wonder that the people, too, were over-reacting. On the contrary, the government said that preparations, including the construction of two helipads in Bogor Palace and the interruption of public communications and transportation during the visit, were acknowledged as a normal measure.
Why so much preparation by the Indonesian government to welcome President Bush when the reaction on the ground against the visit was so overwhelming?
To begin with, Indonesia is the largest Muslim populated country in the world while President Bush is considered to be the public enemy number one in the Muslim world. Moreover, in the post-9/11 world, the American image worldwide and in Muslim world in particular is declining each day. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of war against terror and spreading democracy contributed to this major decline of American image worldwide. These policies have been considered as direct confrontation against the Muslims.
So, even though the fundamentalist Muslim group is a minority and the majority of Indonesian Muslims are moderate, but these policies have angered even the moderate Muslims. If the fundamentalists consider Bush as public enemy number one, the moderate vent their anger and protest as an expression of solidarity to the suffering of their Muslim bothers and sisters in countries dominated and exploited by the US and its allies. It is thus of anyone’s guess that a personality like President Bush is not welcomed.
Similarly, other local issues such as U.S.-based multinational companies operating in various parts of Indonesia, which have been criticized for running their operations based on unfair agreements and the lack of responsibility to the environment, is also on the minds of most protesters. With issues like these, the protestors against Bush do not solely belong to Muslim groups alone but also from other groups belonging to other ideological affiliation who are against the hegemonic policies of the US government.
Thus, before and during Bush’s visit to Indonesia, there were reports on anti-US demonstrations staged by these groups in various parts of Indonesia. From Yogyakarta to Jakarta, from Surabaya to Surakarta, demonstrations were endless with American symbols such as McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken had been targetted by the demonstrators, while Bush effigies were burnt.
On the other hand, Indonesia is still struggling to re-build its economy and other social structures devastated almost a decade ago by the Asian crisis. The transition from authoritarianism into a full-fledged representative democracy is hard and demanding. The rotten system has to be overhauled and it is not an easy task. Helps and cooperation from various sources must be utilized in the best possible way for the benefit of Indonesia. A lending hand from a government like the US, the oldest democracy in the world, is welcomed.
This, I think, is the reason why President Yudhoyono was very enthusiastic to welcome President Bush to Indonesia. But was it worth enough for Indonesia to make such a meticulous preparation just to welcome a President that has a dipping popularity at his home front? What will Indonesia gain from this brief, seemingly insignificant visit?
Many analysts in Indonesia have been skeptical about the outcome of this visit for Indonesia. The lack of important substance discussed during this brief visit added to this skepticism. Quoting Bantarto Bandoro from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Jakarta, the visit is much more important for Bush than to Indonesia’s need. With the depleting support at home, a successful visit to a Muslim nation like Indonesia would boost the confidence of Bush to take the challenges at home and abroad in the months to come.
Expressing similar view, Dewi Fortuna Anwar from the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) said that the visit would have helped restore the US’ image among Muslims in Indonesia in particular and, most importantly, in the Muslim world. But what is important now is for America to realize its promises to Indonesia, she said. During this visit, Bush had offered Indonesia financial help to fight bird flu, assistance in establishing a tsunami early warning system, and technology for alternative energy. In addition, the U.S. had committed US$55 million to support Indonesia's fight against graft and to develop economic strategies for more jobs, and $157 million for assistance in education and health.
Muslim intellectual like Azyumardi Azra, the former rector of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta, said that the visit would give less to Indonesia but would give major boost to the US’ image worldwide. The fact that the $157 million in aid promised in 2003 to President Megawati for education and health had yet to be disbursed was a clear indication of Bush’s reluctance to engage Indonesia more seriously. It is more of a lip service than a genuine effort to engage an important partner like Indonesia.
To conclude, apart from being in the headlines of national and international news agencies, Indonesia virtually gained nothing from this visit. So much wasted, yet so little gain. I think the following quotation from a citizen who wrote in a leading Indonesian newspaper, not untypical of many, can serve as a reflection to this visit.
He wrote: “Bush came to Bogor to discuss education and economic development for ordinary people. But what was the use of these discussions when the schools in the surrounding areas were closed in order to provide high-security and while all street vendors were banned during his visits? ... We are sick of U.S. intervention...Stop your unilateral acts Mr. Bush!”
But then, will President George W. Bush ever learn “something” from his Asian tour this time? I don't think so.
To welcome the six hours visit, the Indonesian government must spent a whopping 6 billion Indonesian Rupiah (more than half a million US Dollar), not a small amount of money for a country like Indonesia, just to build two unused helipads especially meant for President Bush’s arrival in Bogor in the vicinity of Indonesia’s famous Bogor Botanical Garden, a major center for botanical research that host many exotic plants. And to make matter worse, the Bush entourage did not land there and instead the landed in a sport stadium nearby and used motorcade to arrive at Bogor Presidential Palace to meet President Yudhoyono. The helipad is a total waste of taxpayer’s money and at the same time, it poses some danger to the ecosystem in the Garden.
Civic groups have called the preparations for Bush’s short visit in Indonesia simply overwhelming. The security was over-prepared, the guards were over-acting and no wonder that the people, too, were over-reacting. On the contrary, the government said that preparations, including the construction of two helipads in Bogor Palace and the interruption of public communications and transportation during the visit, were acknowledged as a normal measure.
Why so much preparation by the Indonesian government to welcome President Bush when the reaction on the ground against the visit was so overwhelming?
To begin with, Indonesia is the largest Muslim populated country in the world while President Bush is considered to be the public enemy number one in the Muslim world. Moreover, in the post-9/11 world, the American image worldwide and in Muslim world in particular is declining each day. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of war against terror and spreading democracy contributed to this major decline of American image worldwide. These policies have been considered as direct confrontation against the Muslims.
So, even though the fundamentalist Muslim group is a minority and the majority of Indonesian Muslims are moderate, but these policies have angered even the moderate Muslims. If the fundamentalists consider Bush as public enemy number one, the moderate vent their anger and protest as an expression of solidarity to the suffering of their Muslim bothers and sisters in countries dominated and exploited by the US and its allies. It is thus of anyone’s guess that a personality like President Bush is not welcomed.
Similarly, other local issues such as U.S.-based multinational companies operating in various parts of Indonesia, which have been criticized for running their operations based on unfair agreements and the lack of responsibility to the environment, is also on the minds of most protesters. With issues like these, the protestors against Bush do not solely belong to Muslim groups alone but also from other groups belonging to other ideological affiliation who are against the hegemonic policies of the US government.
Thus, before and during Bush’s visit to Indonesia, there were reports on anti-US demonstrations staged by these groups in various parts of Indonesia. From Yogyakarta to Jakarta, from Surabaya to Surakarta, demonstrations were endless with American symbols such as McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken had been targetted by the demonstrators, while Bush effigies were burnt.
On the other hand, Indonesia is still struggling to re-build its economy and other social structures devastated almost a decade ago by the Asian crisis. The transition from authoritarianism into a full-fledged representative democracy is hard and demanding. The rotten system has to be overhauled and it is not an easy task. Helps and cooperation from various sources must be utilized in the best possible way for the benefit of Indonesia. A lending hand from a government like the US, the oldest democracy in the world, is welcomed.
This, I think, is the reason why President Yudhoyono was very enthusiastic to welcome President Bush to Indonesia. But was it worth enough for Indonesia to make such a meticulous preparation just to welcome a President that has a dipping popularity at his home front? What will Indonesia gain from this brief, seemingly insignificant visit?
Many analysts in Indonesia have been skeptical about the outcome of this visit for Indonesia. The lack of important substance discussed during this brief visit added to this skepticism. Quoting Bantarto Bandoro from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Jakarta, the visit is much more important for Bush than to Indonesia’s need. With the depleting support at home, a successful visit to a Muslim nation like Indonesia would boost the confidence of Bush to take the challenges at home and abroad in the months to come.
Expressing similar view, Dewi Fortuna Anwar from the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) said that the visit would have helped restore the US’ image among Muslims in Indonesia in particular and, most importantly, in the Muslim world. But what is important now is for America to realize its promises to Indonesia, she said. During this visit, Bush had offered Indonesia financial help to fight bird flu, assistance in establishing a tsunami early warning system, and technology for alternative energy. In addition, the U.S. had committed US$55 million to support Indonesia's fight against graft and to develop economic strategies for more jobs, and $157 million for assistance in education and health.
Muslim intellectual like Azyumardi Azra, the former rector of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta, said that the visit would give less to Indonesia but would give major boost to the US’ image worldwide. The fact that the $157 million in aid promised in 2003 to President Megawati for education and health had yet to be disbursed was a clear indication of Bush’s reluctance to engage Indonesia more seriously. It is more of a lip service than a genuine effort to engage an important partner like Indonesia.
To conclude, apart from being in the headlines of national and international news agencies, Indonesia virtually gained nothing from this visit. So much wasted, yet so little gain. I think the following quotation from a citizen who wrote in a leading Indonesian newspaper, not untypical of many, can serve as a reflection to this visit.
He wrote: “Bush came to Bogor to discuss education and economic development for ordinary people. But what was the use of these discussions when the schools in the surrounding areas were closed in order to provide high-security and while all street vendors were banned during his visits? ... We are sick of U.S. intervention...Stop your unilateral acts Mr. Bush!”
But then, will President George W. Bush ever learn “something” from his Asian tour this time? I don't think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)