Dr. Saiful Mujani: Nahdliyin Rituals, the Social Capital of Democracy

Involvement in religious associations, as well as in non-religious ones, correlates positively with the reinforcement of democracy. On the micro level, the collective dimension within NU’s rituals is also significant in order to strengthen the social network and make it capable of mediating public matters. This is a part of a discovery by PPIM (Centre of Islam and Society’s study) UIN Jakarta at 2001 and 2002 led by Saiful Mujani. Here is Burhanuddin’s interview with Saiful Mujani, the Director Of Freedom Institute who recently received his PhD from Ohio State University on 10^th June 2003:

BURHANUDDIN: Your dissertation is revolves around Samuel P. Huntington’s claim that the more pious the Muslim the less democratic he becomes. Why does Huntington’s claim have no empirical basis in Indonesia?

SAIFUL MUJANI: Despite of the fact that Huntington’s study is popular and is being read everywhere, it is merely journalistic. Thr thesis is based on the opinion of the mass media. and is based on impressions regarding life and political practice in Muslim countries. When we observe relations between Islam and democracy more systematically, we will understand that the arguments he developed are not empirically strong.

In addition, the information used by Huntington is based on his description of the past history of Islam. Hence, it is not based on the real life of current Muslim society. Therefore, it’s natural if those views of Muslim society in the past are not in accordance with democracy today.

BURHANUDDIN: Do you want to say that democracy is a new symptom everywhere?

Yes, democracy is a new phenomenon which initially developed in the West. Democracy is the product of the late 19^th century and the beginning of the 20^th century. Even in America the political rights of black citizens were only achieved in the 1960’s. So democracy has not existed for more than half century. If Islam is considered as being not in accordance with democracy, based on past observations, it is natural that the result would be likewise. We should remember that Muslim communities – like other societies - have experienced transformations of attitude and views within their religious life. This is neglected by Huntington.

BURHANUDDIN: Your dissertation is quite interesting: Religious Democrats: Democratic Culture and Muslim Participation in Post Suharto Era (2003). Someone who is religious may become a democrat?

Actually my discovery is parallel to Alexis Tocqueville’s observation in his famous book, Democracy in America. Tocqueville described how people who are religious and active in religious activities become democratic and contribute to democratic development as well. I try to observe that matter in the Indonesian context. Is a similar situation occurring here?

Religion’s urgency regarding democracy would appear if religious groups form social networks. Religion is not only about individual power. Therefore, religion’s urgency in America, in Tocqueville’s context, is when it is interpreted within the church, religious organizations or civil society.   

BURHANUDDIN: How does one put this into the Indonesian context.

The same thing could happen as well in the Indonesian context. Of course it is relative. But the most important thing is that spirit, faith and belief of Islamic society should be interpreted into collective social activities. For instance, participation in religious organization like Nahdatul Ulama, Muhammadiyah, or Majlis Taklim. Those activities lead the community to be more open towards the complexities of social life.

BURHANUDDIN: Are those people who are socially engaged in ritual collectively more receptive and supportive toward the issues of democracy and civil society?

Yes. Religion is a device to bridge realization of religious values with socio-political life. A Muslim should realize and be more open to view the complexity of their social life, that in fact there are many pluralities around them.

Therefore, they are urged to be more tolerant, open, pluralist than people who are merely ritualistic, that is, who fast sunnah (meritorious deed) alone or pray tahajjud within the dark of night. Even though those rituals of worship are important and fundamental to religion, it would have no meaning if it not drawn further into the wider social-political life. Hence, it’s only the collective ritual dimensions that are needed in the democratic context, for instance congregational prayer. You see in Islam, congregational prayer has a greater reward as compared to individual prayer.

BURHANUDDIN: Do the rituals or worship performed individually have no social meaning?

Yes, that’s obvious. Worship by definition is one’s concern with his God. In the American tradition, it’s not only Christian teaching per se which is pro democracy, but the interpretation of Christian teaching in the context of the church and religious civil society in the Protestant tradition which helped the growth of collectivity which supported democracy in America.

BURHANUDDIN: You also discuss NU’s rituals in your dissertation. What basis is there for your argument that NU’s ritual is a form of social capital for democracy?

In the tradition of NU, we are familiar with practices of yasinan (reading surah yasin), manakiban (reciting prayer and poetry in reminiscence of an imam), tahlilan (people gathering to offer prayer for people who have died), tujuh harian or haul (offering prayers for a week and a year after death), etc. Those practices in my two researches nationally on 2001 and 2002 have a double effect. Usually, the activist of NU are also active in “secular” organizations. The activists in NU tends to be active in Karang Taruna (neighborhood youth associations), PKK (educational programs for woman on various aspects of family welfare) and in clubs for sport and art.  In short, religious people tend to be supportive of democracy.

BURHANUDDIN: How do the rituals of NU mediate democratic life?

If someone is involved in a collectivity, whatever it is, sociologically that collective aspect is part of political life. In that sort of collectivity, one would gain more information and be more involved in social life. It is impossible to create democracy without any feelings of engagement or social involvement.  BURHANUDDIN: Are collective activities which are not based not on religious motives social capital for democracy?

That’s right. The substance is collectivity. If religion is not interpreted into that form of collectivity, it would not be positive capital for the formation and empowerment of democracy. There are many examples. Nevertheless, the substance is this: involvement within an organization or collective ritual to involve ourselves into public matters and society. From there the impulse to be involved within political activity based on participation becomes the core of democracy itself.

BURHANUDDIN: What is fundamental in terms of the individual’s involvement within socio-religious life?

The main thing is how someone can come into the complexity of social life. It depends very much upon the role of media in society. In societies where the position of religion is less important, its media is a “secular” media like sport club, jaipongan (traditional kind of dance) group etc. But religion becomes an important social capital within our society which is well known to be religious. We don’t have to make something new anymore. We may use the available social capital. Isn’t it more efficient?

In fact, religion always becomes a medium that carries citizens into a more complex life. Indeed, those activities are not certain to lead people to be open, plural, and so on. But empirically, my assumption that religion is a source of exclusivism is unnecessary. Actually, it just an assumption. The empirical basis I found in our society is not like that. The nature of socio-religious organizations within society is not based on that negative assumption.

The mainstream socio-religious organizations like NU and Muhammadiyah, even though they are not pluralist since they do not involve Christian, Hindu and so on in their management boards, still they do not oppose a non-Muslim state. Therefore, people of NU and Muhammadiyah can interact widely with groups of different religions and views. So, religious organization could be the bridge to a wider, more complex, plural, and colorful world. 

BURHANUDDIN: Does this mean that the social capital of democracy is born from our own socio-religious culture’s womb?

Yes. My concentration is on those collective rituals. There is a transcendental dimension within the ritual of yasinan, tahlilan, manaqiban and so on; that is the intent of worship toward Allah. We also found many implications behind that ritual. We do not merely read yasin in ritual of yasinan, but also maintain the bonds of friendship and brotherhood (silaturrahmi) through meeting people. In the context of democracy it is known as civic engagement.

BURHANUDDIN: Lately, there are new Islamic movements coming out of NU and Muhammadiyah which are developing an Islamic political orientation. Is this phenomenon positively supporting democracy? That is the most important and main question. The group you call Islamist or sometimes fundamentalist, militant or radical, are a small group of people. But this small group has become important since it is very active. It is active for itself and therefore does not add to pluralism. The Islamist and radical activist form enclave cultures and do not engage with society.

Look at the activist behind the Bali blast that come into certain villages and do not engage with local society. They do not socialize but remain strangers. Hence, that sort of man is actually an alienated human. Therefore, they make no contribution to enriching and widening the collective awareness and complexity of social life.

BURHANUDDIN: Some religious groups cannot accept religious rituals having collective dimension since they are considered as bid’ah (heresy). They prefer the concept of hijrah translated as the physical and moral exodus of the social life considered to be jahiliyah. What is your opinion?

I look at that matter empirically. We observe that traditions considered as religious rituals are performed by Nahdiyyin in Indonesia or the Shiite in Iran. They are heretical, bid’ah, according to the Wahaby sect in Saudi Arabia. We know that puritanic sect like the Wahaby emphasize purity and authenticity. But we can also debate about what is authentic.

Nevertheless my interest in this study is to observe how far religious ritual, whatever it is, can be provide a basis for the growth of democracy. If the available social capital in our tradition supporting people to live collectively and socially involved were annihilated since it’s considered bid’ah, and for some cases were considered as musyrik (polytheist), that behavior would not support democracy. The movement of tarekat (path for mystics to follow, esp. Sufism) has a huge collectivity aspect which should not be eliminated only because it is considered as bid’ah.

Look at how religious life in Arab Saudi is so poor. It is here that the root of Islamic fundamentalism and conservatism which is anti democratic developed. Why so? They look at this life simply and in a way which does not lead the Muslim community into a rich and heterogeneous life socially and culturally.

BURHANUDDIN: Do you mean that if Muslim society was more involved in social life, that would prevent fundamentalism?

Yes. That feeling and experience toward the complexity of social life would be introduced through collective ritual life. Therefore, we observe that Sufis are tolerant. It’s due to the social dimension they feel, observe and experience. So, they know that life is not merely black or white, or that life is for personal worship only.

BURHANUDDIN: You are talking about the rituals of NU as the social capital of democracy. Isn’t the medium of Muhammadiyah to be found in its deeds and organization units?

That’s right. I have to emphasize that social capital is not the only form of religous capital; there are many form of it. Muhammadiyah, even though it is not as intensive as NU in yasinan or tahlilan, is still involved in the religious life in other forms. It is also part of collectivity supported by religious motives. To me this sort of activity is positive; hence activists of NU and Muhammadiyah in my study have positively contributed to empowering our democracy.[]

 

(Translated by Lanny Octavia, edited by Jonathan Zilberg)