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.

[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.