Is democracy good for Islamic reform agenda?

Indonesia has been into democracy for almost thirteen years. It began in 1998 when thousands of students occupied the parliament which eventually resulted in the ouster of President Suharto, an autocrat who ruled the country for more than three decades. That was the beginning of democratic epoch in Indonesia.

A massive change ensued in the wake of democratization process, ranging from amendments of the constitution, decentralization of political structure, military reform that ensures civilian supremacy, to multi-party system that allows the multitude of political parties to emerge, reflecting ideological diversity in the Indonesian society. 

For the first time since the 1966 when President Suharto came to power, Islamic parties were given a fair chance to enter into political arena, participating in a “formal politics”, competing with other secular and nationalist parties to win support from the larger populace in a more democratic election.

Three decades of Suharto’s rule was marked by a perceived secularization of political system and the marginalization of Islamic political force. The Suharto’s regime shared other Muslim despotic rulers all over the world the thought that Islamic political force is the source of disturbance to national agenda of economic development, which necessitated its neutralization through various political means.

Democracy brought also another significant change in the form of freer press. It put an end to draconian laws that controlled media and prevented the existence of independent association of journalist. The creation in 1994 of first ever such independent association, i.e. The Alliance of Indonesian Journalists (AJI), was met by detaining its activists and putting them into jail.

Democracy had made it possible for anyone to publish media outlets without prior license aka SIUPP from the issuing governmental authority as it was the case in the past under the regime of “controlled information”. Muslim media, as a result, boomed in an unprecedented way, stirring concern among some people as it showed irresponsible practice of journalism, such as spreading hate speech against minorities.

However, the picture of Indonesian democracy is rather complex and nuanced. Apart from good tidings it brought to Indonesian political landscape, it also ushered in other things that are of great concern to many people. Part of the picture is the sectarian conflict between Muslim and Christians which broke out in Ambon and Poso in Central Sulawesi. Thousands were killed in the conflict and many more were forced to leave their villages as refugees.

Other excess of democratization process is the emergence of radical and fundamentalist Muslim groups, the most notorious case being The Islamic Defender Front or known as FPI. The Front has been notoriously known for its attacks on churches, minority groups (such as Ahmadiya sect), and raids on gambling clubs, discotheques, etc.

The most alarming development, though, concerned the spread of Jihadi ideology among certain Indonesian youth, along with the increasing religious intolerance towards minorities, particularly Christians.

An odd development occurred when political openness had been exploited by certain Islamist to promote ideologies that are antagonistic to the Indonesian constitution. The good example is the coming to scene of the so-called Hizbut Tahrir, a group whose sole agenda is to propagate the reinstitution of Islamic caliphate (khilafa) in the modern world.

The democratizing political space has apparently brought two conflicting results in Indonesia. In one hand, we see encouraging developments on political arena where multiparty system allows the emergence of political parties reflect diversity in the Indonesian society. In other hand, there are other bad things that came with democracy in the form of increasing intolerance towards, and prevalence of violence against minorities.

The free press resulting from democratizing space has also been seen as being responsible for the mushrooming Islamist media that produce hatred toward Christians and other minority sects within Islam. The current frequent incidents of violence against Ahmadiya group are partially prompted by such hateful messages produced by Islamist magazines or tabloid such as Sabili or Hidayatullah, for instance.

The problem worsened as the central government has been weakened by political processes marked, among other things, by the decentralization and the empowerment of local authorities. There is a stark contrast between the state of past regime and the current state that is born after the political reform. The former is a centralized state, whereas the latter is a weak and fractured state.

The change in the character of Indonesian post-reform state has impacted on the capacity of the government to handle excesses of democracy. There were many incidents of violence in the face of which the state is in sheer paralysis to stop, which obviously stirred angers and frustrations among minorities suffering from such discriminative treatment.

Now, the question is whether democracy is good or not for the Islamic reform agenda. If Indonesian experiment can be of some lessons to us, it seems that the immediate result of democracy is the rise of religious intolerance and conservatism. In the past, any signs of rising intolerance or fundamentalist tendency would be easily checked by the repressive regime through the heavy-handedness of military approach.

Now, as the civilian government is held responsible to more powerful parliament, freer press and robust civil society, it seems that it is entrapped in the state of ambiguity. It is no longer possible for it to take a heavy-handed approach towards Islamist groups the way past regime did. It is also not clear yet for the new government as how to tackle such rising religious intolerance and violence in a manner that doesn’t contradict the principles of human rights and democracy.

The old-fashioned way of ruling is now gone, but the new one is not yet there on the horizon. This ambiguous situation puts the current government in the state of indecisiveness.

As far as the Islamic reform agenda is concerned, it seems that the ambiguity of democratic processes has relegated the agenda propagated by progressive and liberal Muslims onto defensive end. Islamic conservatism is striking back after decades of repression and marginalization under the dictatorship of Suharto. It seems that conservatives and fundamentalists are among the most benefited groups in the democratizing Indonesia.

Having realized all these ambiguities in the democracy, it remains a big question now: Is democracy good for liberal and progressive Islamic agenda? The answer is categorical “yes”. But the dynamic of democracy relative to such agenda is not as simple as it appears on the surface.

The current wisdom is that despite all excesses resulting from transition to democracy in the form of prevalent religious conservatism and intolerance, for instance, it is also true that democracy has a moderating impact on extremist tendencies as well. Free and open political space in democracy has brought to the fore what Asep Bayat called the phenomenon of post-Islamism.

It is also a fact that democracy has made possible not only the booming of books with Islamist and fundamentalist tendencies, but also of books and other written materials that promote progressive Islam.

What also concerns us here is that democracy gave rise to what we may call the Islamic public sphere where Muslim people in general enjoy full freedom to debate, question and challenge many long-established orthodoxy.
The good case in point is some fatwas of Indonesian Council of Ulama (MUI) on various religious issues. The Council’s fatwas that said that notions of pluralism, liberalism, and secularism are against Islamic faith had been subject to many strong criticism and questioning by the Muslim populace.

In other words, with democracy came what we may call a free market of Islamic ideas and interpretation, which is certainly, in my opinion, a good development. Islamic orthodoxy, be it Sunni, Shi’ite or otherwise, always seek to dominate the public space and shut down doors for dissent. Democracy has a merit of preventing such hegemony to occur.

The beneficiary of such open space of debate and dialogues is certainly Muslim public in general. The free market of Islamic ideas allows them to make choices from the variety of tafsirs or interpretations regarding issues that concern them.

It occurs sometimes that a free exchange of ideas on certain sensitive issues prompts violence or bullies from certain group against others. It falls, of course, on the state to enforce law and held all violent groups on check so that free exchange of ideas and debate remains healthy and civilized.

In the long process, such free democratic space would moderate fundamentalist tendencies within Islamic community. As far as Indonesian experiment is concerned, it seems that such free exchange of ideas had eventually resulted in discrediting credibility of jihadi ideologies promoted by clerics such as Abu Bakar Baasyir (now in jail), the allegedly spiritual leader of Jamaah Islamiyah.

So, yes, democracy is good for Islamic reform agenda, albeit with certain reservations, particularly with regards to the nature of state and its capacity to preserve a civilized public space.[]