Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia

[Previously published by The Jakarta Post. Read directly here.
Download PDF file Islam and Competing in Doing Good (The Jakarta Post)]

Islam and competing in doing good
Opinion
Monday, March 3, 2008

Jennie S. Bev, San Francisco

Indonesia is a country with three legal systems: civil (continental), Islamic and adat (customary). Above all, Indonesia is said to be a country based on the concept of rule of law, which is reflected in the 1945 Constitution. But there are also gray areas throughout, and this unique environment serves as a fertile breeding ground for multitudes of interpretations in legal, political and cultural domains.

Based on the rule of law, no one is above the law and the truth occupies the highest form of intent. The continental legal system in Indonesia, which originated from the Dutch imperialism era, is based on this principle.

However, according to Seyyed Hossein Nasr, an Islamic scholar who was educated at MIT and Harvard, in The Heart of Islam (pg. 288), “The rights of God stand above the rights of human beings.”

It is clear that these two systems interpret justice based on different standards. In Islam, there is an absolute body outside the realm of human beings, which is called God, whose final verdicts can never be contested. In short, the Islamic judicial system acknowledges the concepts of absolutism and absolute power.

In a country with three legal systems, whose historical origins and notions of justice differ significantly from one another, it would take a group of people with mantic capacities to push the country forward in light of being accepted as a part of international society with universal humanitarian standards. Because unless this occurs brazenly in continuum, Indonesia might need to accept the fact that it may degrade itself into the darkness.

A few Islamic scholars and activists have taken their stance in showing the world how Islam is a tolerant religion and that Islamic laws and jurisprudence are adaptable in modern society. Other than our own Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid, Azyumardi Azra and a few pluralistic ulema and scholars, professor of law at Emory University, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, and a research fellow at the Lokahi Foundation in Switzerland, Tariq Ramadan, who is nicknamed the “Martin Luther of Islam”, are two other examples of outspoken moderates whose voices are heard by the world, including leaders in Western countries.

The world needs more people like them to break the silence of the moderate Muslim majority and to embrace the notions of diversity and tolerance, which the Koran has been preaching to the world but are rarely heard.

It would not be fair for Islam as an institution to be “represented” in the world by noisy fundamentalists and extremists. Because, after all, most Muslims long to live in peaceful coexistence with others.

Tariq Ramadan is one exemplary moderate scholar and preacher. In his book Western Muslims and the Future of Islam (pg. 202), he encourages interfaith and interreligious dialogue, as he believes that it is how God wants the totality of humankind to behave.

Ramadan explains, “If there were no differences between people, if power were in the hands of one group alone (one nation, one race, one religion), the earth would be corrupt because human beings need others to limit their impulsive desire for expansion and domination. So, just as diversity is the source of our test, the balance of power is a requirement for our destiny.”

This statement is so beautiful that I would contemplate its profound meanings every night before going to bed. Islam is, indeed, a great religion for acknowledging the rainbow of humankind in a balanced mind-and-heart perspective.

Realistically speaking, back to Indonesia, the gray areas in the intertwining legal systems have proven to be very costly. This was evident when Home Minister Mardiyanto did not have a second thought in declaring that the government did not see any need to revise the 600 sharia-based and sharia-inspired bylaws, regardless of the catastrophic consequences that might follow, including opening a Pandora’s box to an unjust society and to the end of a democratic republic.

This is quite bothersome because both the people and the religion of peace itself are greatly affected.

A good analysis was put forth by Prof. Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im in Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law (pg. 8-9): “If historical Shari’a is applied today, the population of Muslim countries would lose the most significant benefits of secularization. Even Muslim men, who are the only full citizens of an Islamic state under Sharia, stand to lose some of their fundamental constitutional rights if Shari’a is restored as the public law of the land.”

Under sharia public law, freedom of belief, expression and association of Muslim men would be greatly affected by the law of apostasy and the ruler’s powers.

This is a valid argument, as Indonesian analysts point out that substance-wise the sharia-inspired bylaws go against the democratic principles contained in the 1945 Constitution. Articles 28D and 28I state everyone should be free from discrimination and entitled to equal treatment before the law.

An-Na’im also offered a solution that we all need to ponder upon: “The only way to reconcile these competing imperatives for change in the public law of Muslim countries is to develop a version of Islamic public law which is compatible with modern standards of constitutionalism, criminal justice, international law, and human rights.”

While An-Na’im gave examples of Islamic countries, which Indonesia is clearly not, Indonesia should be able to grasp the insightful statements as a way to resolve the gray areas between national civil law and Islamic public law.

The 1945 Constitution, in fact, was the brainchild of our founding fathers, most of whom were well-educated and broad-minded moderate Muslims. Thus, in the case of Indonesia as a modern nation, there is no need to reformulate another version of Islamic public law.

For Indonesia to stand tall and be accepted as a member of the international community, which is dignified and democratic with high humanitarian standards, we need to remember that God intended to create communities so we all can compete in doing good for one another and to be each other’s check-and-balance. After all, the world does not revolve around Indonesia; Indonesia revolves around the world.

The writer is a columnist, a former law lecturer and an adjunct professor based in Northern California. She graduated from University of Indonesia Law School. She can be found at JennieSBev.com.

[Previously published by Asia Sentinel (Hong Kong, China).
Read directly here.
Download PDF file Pandora’s Box: Shariah Law in Indonesia by Jennie S. Bev (Asia Sentinel, Hong Kong)]

OPINION
Pandora’s Box: Shariah Law in Indonesia

26 February 2008
Special to Asia Sentinel (Hong Kong)
by Jennie S. Bev

A declaration that existing local shariah laws can stay in place could generate more shariah laws.

In November 2007, Indonesia won the prestigious Democracy Award from the International Association of Political Consultants (IAPC) for its peaceful transition into democracy over the last nine years. It was the first time the award, whose previous recipients had been Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Ky, had ever been given to an entire nation.

The association’s award, however seems a bit hollow after Home Affairs Minister Mardiyanto declared recently that the government sees no need to nullify some 600 shariah-based and -inspired bylaws passed by individual governments across the thousands of islands that make up the archipelago.

Mardiyanto’s decision was the culmination of a June 6 request to his predecessor to look into the issue of shariah law following a petition by Indonesian lawmakers urging the government to void such religious laws in local jurisdictions because they discriminate against non-Muslims. The decision by Mardiyanto to let them stand is being looked upon with alarm by moderates Indonesia because of the possibility that other local jurisdictions will be encouraged to switch to shariah laws.

Indonesia was established in 1945 by Sukarno as a secular nation under so-called Pancasila, a Sanskrit word meaning five principles. They included national unity, internationalism, representative democracy, social justice and secular theism. In addition, the country has not one but three officially acknowledged justice systems. The most common is the civil continental system, a derivative of the European or continental legal system. The second is the native Adat or tribal system, a complex system of community rights common throughout Southeast Asia. The third is shariah law, the Islamic legal system, which holds that there is an absolute body of laws outside the realm of human beings, ordained by God, whose final verdicts can never be contested.

Thus, since absolutism and absolute power are prevalent, such Islamic bylaws are in opposition of the 1945 Constitution established by Sukarno for Indonesia as a democracy. Articles 28D and 28I enshrine democratic principles in law, including freedom of association and assembly as well as the right to express thoughts by speech and writing.

Constitutional scholars say Islamic law does not fit into Indonesia’s democratic framework.

For instance, an Islamic law scholar, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, in Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law, wrote that, “If historical shariah is applied today, the population of Muslim countries would lose the most significant benefits of secularization. Even Muslim men, who are the only full citizens of an Islamic state under shariah stand to lose some of their fundamental constitutional rights if shariah is restored as the public law of the land.” Under shariah public law, freedom of belief, expression and association of Muslim men would be greatly affected by the law of apostasy and the ruler’s supremacy and power over the society.

When such bylaws are imposed in Indonesia, non-Muslims are considered second class citizens, in which fair treatment is hard to conceive. They would need to live under pledges of security or safe-conduct from Muslims. And with absolutism in the air, those who hold power absolute tend to absolute corruption, as Lord Action famously noted.

There are already examples. In the Padang municipality in West Sumatra, but female Muslims and non-Muslim women as well are obliged to wear the hijab, or headscarf. In Tangerang, located just a few kilometers from the capital city Jakarta, bylaws restrict women from walking alone in the streets after 10pm, or they face charges of prostitution. There have been incidents of wrongful arrests of female factory laborers who worked night shifts.

Although Aceh is so far the only province completely governed by shariah law, more than 50 regencies already are enforcing it. And with the Indonesian government’s failure to distinguish religion from state affairs, democracy is on a dwindling down path into the darkness.

Statistically speaking, although Indonesia is nominally 90 percent Muslim, fewer than 10 percent of them are fundamentalists. However, the silence of the moderates may imply agreement and with the government seemingly unwilling to maintain the country’s heterogeneous equilibrium, it would be naïve the world to sit back and believe that the world and things in general are heading for the better. A democracy award might have been too early, too soon, and too naïve.

The writer is a former law lecturer and an opinion columnist for The Jakarta Post.

[Read directly from Asia Blogging Network
Download PDF file The Urgency of Teaching Political Literacy by Jennie S. Bev (Asia Blogging Network)]

The Urgency of Teaching Political Literacy
Special to Asia Blogging Network

by Jennie S. Bev on Tuesday, February 19th, 2008

Recently, we have been hearing about many things in Indonesian political arena. Most of them call themselves as participants in Indonesia’s reformation era. All consider themselves as noble participants. They want Indonesia to be a better place. A better place for those who believe in their causes.

Such occurrences are understandable, even when fundamentalism and radicalism movements find it an opportunity to use the momentum in making their marks. The fall of Suharto in 1998, which was believed to be the best thing that ever happened to Indonesia at that time, has not been able to create a more trustworthy government today, despite the recent Democracy Award.

Today, it is very hard for citizens to trust their well-being in the hands of central and local government officials whose integrity is questionable. It is known that not all Indonesian officials are corrupt or untrustworthy, but a simple poll or survey could have been proven the assertion that many, if not most, of them are. It is an embarrassing fact that many officials, including those who are posted in foreign countries –thus are assumed to be of “international standard” in handling diplomatic issues with the host country and Indonesian community members residing there—have yet to show their best qualities.

Last year, in a World Affairs Forum seminar in San Francisco, in which Prof. Donald Emmerson of Stanford University’s SEAF was present, the current Indonesian Ambassador to the United States Sudjadnan Parnohadingningrat, was asked a simple question, “How is the current state of minorities in Indonesia?” He answered in an astonishing manner, which was an affront to his own intelligence, “There is no more minority issue, we now have Imlek (Chinese New Year) celebration.” Sure, it is a good point and it is well taken.

Another question was asked on the raise of radicalism and fundamentalism movements in Indonesia, which he answered, “Only one percent of radicals and fundamentalists in the midst of more than 230 million people who are moderates, so why bother? Let ‘the market’ determines.” As concerned citizens, the seminar participants were astonished. One of them was surprised, “Does it mean anarchy?” Still, he reiterated his answer.

Many of the seminar participants were politically literate people and we were disappointed to hear that. We know what to expect when one asks such a question. Alas, the Excellency Mr. Ambassador perhaps has been used to with constituents who are not politically literate, which could be in the number of hundreds of millions in Indonesia.

For us all, the citizens of Indonesia and the world, to understand how we are represented by the government, we need to educate ourselves to become literate politically. At this point, it might be a wishful thinking for Indonesian government to educate us because, apparently, many of the officials are not statesmen in the truest meaning of the word. It is very hard to find honest statesmen like the late founding father Dr. Muhammad Hatta and Prof. Dr. Daoed Joesoef nowadays.

Educating ourselves to be politically literate in a democratic country is quite simple. And by “political literacy,” it refers to a set of skills necessary for citizens to participate in society’s government. In short, there are abilities what we all need to master, so we can stand tall in front of those government officials who may have prejudices against their constituents and behave not in a respectable manner. It does not mean we aim to be a career politician, but to think and to act as an informed constituent. After all, those government officials cannot become who they are without us.

First and foremost, representation. A citizen is the one with power, hence being a constituent. The notion of a “government official” should be separated from the notion a “government.” In the minds of constituents, it is imperative that we see the “government” as a group of people who have received a special mandate from the people to act on their behalf. Thus, the real power lies in the hands of the people, in our hands.

Second, participation. In a democratic country, no matter how patriarchy the culture is, every individual regardless of age, gender, and other social backgrounds is equal before the law. Thus, when there are laws that do not adhere to this fundamental principle, they are not acceptable and we can change them with a strong will that are channeled properly. In the United States, the power of writing is one of the most useful. With people-managed petitions, there are many things that can be accomplished. Perseverance, of course, is likely to pay off. The key is a winner’s mentality in attesting our conviction.

Third, recognizing biased and “framing” statements. Politicians are notorious for their ability to say things with metaphors and pretentious dictions, as George Orwell said in his masterpiece Politics and the English Language. He said, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better.”

Fourth, the rule of law and legal systems. The simplest form of the rule of law is that no one is above the law. And the highest form of ethics is the truth. Truth must be honored in the highest manner, not dishonesty in any manner. In Indonesia, there are three legal systems –western continental, Islamic, and native adat — that clearly show how the society is not only stratified but compartmentalized. Horizontally and vertically. Understanding the history and how each legal system came into existence is key in understanding the current and predicting the future state of Indonesian laws and regulations. After all, a civilized society is one that is ruled by law.

At last, let me cite John Wayne who said to John F. Kennedy, the elected president whom he did not vote, “I didn’t vote for him, but he is my president. I hope he does a good job.” And by being politically literate constituents, we are one step closer to a more just society where people’s equality is not merely rhetoric but a reality for all to enjoy.

Jennie S. Bev is an author, entrepreneur, and educator based in San Francisco Bay Area. She has over 1,000 articles and 60+ print and electronic books published in America and Asia under her belt and was named an EPPIE Award finalist for excellence in electronic publishing under Non-Fiction How-To category. Among others, she has written articles for, been featured and quoted in Entrepreneur, Canadian Business, San Francisco Chronicle, The Independent, Teen People, Home Business, Audrey, The Jakarta Post, About.com, FabSugar.com, Femina, Fit, and Dong (France and Germany). She is a regular columnist for several publications and can be found at JennieSBev.com.

[Read directly from The Jakarta Post.
Download the PDF file The Power and Abuse of Language in Politics by Jennie S. Bev (The Jakarta Post)]

The power and abuse of language in politics

Opinion and Editorial – February 20, 2008

Jennie S. Bev, San Francisco

Language is a powerful tool in politics and politicians are its most superfluous users, both for good and bad purposes. As George Orwell once wrote in his masterpiece Why I Write, “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

At the apex of such usage, the politics of amnesia, a term coined by Therry Eagleton, transpires. When it does occur, benevolent conscience is no longer apparent, nor mindful understanding of what truly has happened in front of our eyes. Because when such amnesia occurs, the language of politics has reached its most gruesome function: to kill and to win in totality without any recollection. The perfect crime.

Indonesia is no exception. Language has been used in an ad nauseam manner to create an environment of fear and insecurity since the beginning. While such manipulative usage is understandable to a certain degree, it is not acceptable when power-oriented intentions are palpable. After all, regardless of one’s ideology, a true politician is a statesman, whose interests revolve around his or her constituents’ well-being and welfare instead of obtaining as much power as possible. In an ideal world, the people must be protected, not periclitated.

Combine this phenomenon with Indonesia being a “soft nation”, a Weberian term as put forth by Azyumardi Azra, a notable Indonesian Islamic scholar in Indonesia, Islam, and Democracy, where democracy is still in its infancy and the majority of the population are highly affected by rampant patrimonialism, corruption, cronyism and nepotism; the tendency for unifying multiple elements from religion, religiosity, to politics, the power of political language is magnified in a manner that is indoctrinating and brainwashing. Above all, low levels of education, which is evident with a mere total of 5,000 doctorate degree holders in a country of 235 million in population, serve as fertile soil.

There are many examples from which we can clearly see how the political elites have been steering the people’s perceptions in order to maintaining their status quo. The term pemerintah, which is Indonesian for “government”, itself is a fallacy as it literally translates as “one who gives orders”. “One who gives orders” is a concept of complete opposite of “one who represents the people”, because when one represents, the higher power rests with the people, not the other way around.

The May 1998 incident is a good example. The term kerusuhan, which means “anarchic riot”, clearly indicates from whose perspective this condemnatory terminology was coined. If we closely pay attention to the actual happenings under the surface, the people who suffer the most are victims in the truest meaning of the word. Both the so-called “rioters” and the “riotees” were victims of an orchestrated political scenario. And, for all who possess some good conscience at heart, it would be more appropriate to address such an incident as a “tragedy” instead of a “riot”. The anarchic-looking incident was simply the surface of an occurrence, not the substance.

When we address something, we need to adhere to substance, not to what is seen on the surface. While it is acceptable to say it like it is prior to a full understanding, making amends at a later date is still not too late. The key is to think clearly before using any terminology, especially one that is steered — one that is used to frame an incident or a phenomenon.

In other parts of the world, such as the United States, politicians’ rhetoric serves both good and bad intentions as well. While rising political star Barack Obama has been able to use hopeful rhetoric in a bipartisan manner, President George W. Bush has been using the language of politics to place his ideological haughtiness in a narrowly partisan perspective.

Obama has shown how being an inspiration to “a nation in distress” gives hope and motivation to make meaningful change. Bush, on the contrary, whose rhetoric may sound utterly self-righteous, clearly shows a self-serving purpose that has placed the United States at its lowest point in terms of popularity.

Still, I would not judge Obama as a better man than Bush. Because, after all, both are politicians, whose language skills may differ in advancement from one another, but they are what they are, nonetheless. Unless, of course, time has unmistakably proven their truest colors.

At last, let us all try to comprehend the ruling elite’s tendency to use language to attain political goals, because only this way will we be able to maintain an awareness of politicians’ agenda, both hidden and out in the open. After all, we live in a democracy, which is based on the mediocre majority, as Aristotle once said. And such a claim of “mediocrity” or its antithesis can only be verified with time.

Whenever a political term is introduced, we need to listen to our conscience and ponder it. By increasing our political literacy through careful usage of words, we heighten our awareness as human beings.

The writer is a columnist, social commentator and an adjunct professor based in Northern California. She can be found at JennieSBev.com.