Robert W. Hefner: Indonesians Are Hungry for Democracy

The 2004 Election will be the second election after the reformation. The battle between 24 political parties implies a fragmentation partly based in religion. In this case, fragmentation in Islam is interesting to observe. The use of Islamic symbols in politics, dragging has become a “commodity” for the parties. Focusing on democratization and Islamic dynamic in Indonesia, mainly the relation between Islam and politic and Islamic groups and political party, Ulil Abshar-Abdalla from Liberal Islam Network interviewed Dr. Robert W. Hefner. Also known as Bob Hefner, a researcher and politician from Boston University, he has conducted research on Islamic progress in Indonesia and published a book, Civil Islam. The interview was held on Thursday, 19^th February 2004 in Jakarta.

ULIL ABSHAR-ABDALLA (ULIL): Mr. Hefner, concerning the Islamic parties’ progress since election 1999, what is your observation regarding democratization in Indonesia?

ROBERT W. HEFNER (HEFNER): Observing the political situation and election in Indonesia, the 1999 election was executed well and democratically. Currently, approaching election 2004 I am still optimistic that the election will be performed democratically and accepted by people and Islamic parties as a natural democratic process. There’s no matter in it, but success.

ULIL: The 1999 Election was peaceful, maybe due to intensive observation from the international world, so Indonesian wanted to show a good election. In the future, do you forsee that the election will be peaceful as well?

HEFNER: Maybe there’s a little bit of stiff competition. If we observe 1999 –in that time I was in Jogja and travelling around East Java, Pasuruan, and Malang, and observing the political process there—, actually Indonesian society everywhere wanted democracy and wanted democracy to be performed peacefully and inclusively. I think what is meant by result is not only from the number of votes for any party. But the practical result proves that society has moved towards a maturer democracy. Now I am still optimistic. But on the other side, excluding the election system and all, there are worrying symptoms like political competition.

ULIL: Can you mention several examples?

HEFNER: It is when people use violence by using religious symbols for the thing that do not reflect the right religious interests.

ULIL: Are you talking about groups using violence, like terrorism?

HEFNER: Not only that. Terrorism is a marginal phenomenon. What I affirm here is a politicization process: rather than observing the right interest and empirical politic, there’s a tendency to use religious symbols without real substance according to religious ideals. Most people don’t want to do that.

ULIL: Among the 24 parties for instance, five parties use religion, one of them is Christian. This is fewer than in the 1999 election. What kind of symptom is this? Are people getting bored with religious symbols?

HEFNER: I don’t think so. But people may get bored with the use of religious symbol which is not according to the right religious substance. It is a misuse of religious symbol. It is unfair.

For instance in Islam, I think most Muslims consider that politic is very important. The question is how to face the political arena with real Islamic values and attitudes? There are several versions and forms of Islamic politicd when we observe politic not only in Indonesia, but also Algeria and Egypt.

ULIL: You used an interesting term “civil Islam” in your book. Do you suppose that there is a chance for Islam to contribute to the formation of democratic politics. What do you really mean by the term “civil Islam”?

HEFNER: That’s not what I want, but what I interpret from the comments and attitudes of muslim, not only in Indonesia. I saw it everywhere. Actually after I wrote it many readers from Syria and Egypt contacted me and asked me about civil Islam. They also believe that political Islam is not monolithic, not one entity. I mean with the term civil Islam an Islamic politics which starts from the acceptance or openness toward democracy, equality, to a good and democratic form of nationalism. 

ULIL: Can Islam contribute something in building a good politic?

HEFNER: It can and it must. The Christians also face the same issue, consider that faith also give an important contribution. Here I might not be formally secularist, in this issue I may agree with Cak Nur’s (Nurcholis Madjid) approach that secularism differs to political systems starting from an inclusive base. Secularism differs to the non-inclusive political system. I agree with anti-religious secularism. Like the ban of headscarves in France, I will explain more to the French who may be disappointed with my comment. What happened in France is against democratic ideals. Hence what I mean with secularism is where religion in any form can’t enter to public room and can’t color the politic. To me, to color good ideals of religion, they should color politics and color human’s attitude.

ULIL: Hence essentially religion may get involved in politics. What is a concrete example?

HEFNER: It is through civil religion and civil politics. It means that political ideals can’t be fixed forever. It should be open and debatable, and must be constantly reinterpreted by the social-cultural progress. There must be public discussion in civil society. 

ULIL: Mr. Hefner, when we look into the current tendency, why should Islamic parties and Islamic groups be divided through negative competition by using religious symbols. Is that symptom good for democracy or is it a phase which should be passed through?

HEFNER: The healthy competition is natural and a must for democracy, but the fragmentation we see recently is very much against democracy and dangerous for the unity and nationalism of Indonesia. We can say that it is new political grouping. But it is worse than before. In the elections in 1955 or 1957 we see that the available political groupings were led, controlled, so competition was not so hard. There has never been any violence during elections. In the 60’s competition was little bit uncontrolled. What we see recently is the new political grouping where it is more fragmented.

ULIL: Like what?

HEFNER: Like in Borneo on 1998-1999 when Dayak attacked Maduranese, both parties misused ethnical symbols. The same happened in Ambon as well.

ULIL: Is it communal conflict which is not related to party politics?

HEFNER: Yes, it was communal conflict which started from an uncontrolled political grouping by the leader or by good and healthy civility which is needed for democracy. And it is not happening only in Indonesia; inclusive culture, civilized culture, is very difficult everywhere.

ULIL: What requirements needed to build such culture?

HEFNER: Firstly, as ordinary people, all citizens should accept the right of different opinion; they must be inclusive toward others.

ULIL: How can it be achieved?

HEFNER: It is the most difficult. Even in America or Western Europe the coming of Muslim immigrants is hard to accept.

ULIL: The question is this, when we say that democracy is a good system to solve that sort of difference, is democracy an answer for conflicts caused by many identities?

HEFNER: I also think democracy is based on people sovereignty. But there’s an important requirement also, that it is not only people sovereignty but also an acceptance of pluralism. The main point is not minority or majority, but all kind of pluralism in society must be accepted. It is not a natural process but there must be cooperation between state and civil society, so that we don’t consider that civil society is against the state.

ULIL: Is there an antagonistic relation and conflict between society and state in Indonesia? It may have happened in the New Order but now it is different.

HEFNER: It is very different, and I think there’s a progress, a healthy democratic synergy emerging in several areas. Like in the election system, it is an example of a very healthy symptom. But sometimes political elites misuse political symbols.

ULIL: Several people are disturbed by the fact that many parties are using religious symbol or platform. Isn’t one, two or three enough to represent the difference in the groups, why so many of them, is it healthy?  HEFNER: It’s not surprising, if we compare Indonesia to others, Indonesia is in the beginning level of transition toward democracy. No consolidation in the social level. But I think I’m still optimistic, as far as there’s no violence, no rioting. Actually society is more mature and can differentiate the right or wrong use of religious symbols.

ULIL: Will you compare relation between religions, Islamic groups with state and politic between Indonesian experience and other country?

HEFNER: Last year I talked to President Khatami’s advisor from Iran. He said when he heard that I’ve done research in Indonesia, “President Khatami considers Indonesia as an example of healthy Islamic politics. So I think many people in Iran consider that there is an unfinished process here, in a transitional phase, but it is a very interesting process.[]