James Van Zorge – Is Indonesia's democracy and long tradition of secularism under threat from an onslaught of Islamic fundamentalism?
For some, even posing this question seems overly alarmist. It has become conventional wisdom that Indonesia is a bastion of moderation and living proof that Islam and democracy can successfully coexist.
Die-hard optimists are fond of pointing out that Indonesia will never become, say, another Pakistan or a Middle Eastern theocracy. Without a doubt, today's Indonesia looks like an Asian version of modern-day Turkey.
Western-style democracy and values have, for the most part, fitted in seamlessly with Indonesian culture as well as the ancient traditions and symbolism of Islam. What then is there to worry about?
If for no other reason than it is always better to err on the side of caution, a more pessimistic viewpoint is worth some careful consideration.
Just because mosques and malls share urban space and rock 'n' roll tunes can fill the airways after the call to prayer does not mean one can safely assume that all is quiet on the Islamist front. And the reality is, it's not.
Over the past few weeks, terrorists have been handed extraordinarily light sentences in court because, in the words of the presiding judges, the guilty parties were "polite."
The Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), a gang of Muslim brownshirts heavily involved over the past decade in protection rackets and violence against minority Christian communities, has recently been threatening to start a religious war if Shariah is not enforced in Bekasi – and to the horror of many citizens, local politicians have signaled their willingness to comply.
At times, it feels like Indonesia has entered through the looking glass, where everything has been turned upside down. Much too often, what is wrong is deemed as being right.
It is not uncommon these days for the civil rights of criminals to be given precedence over the safety of decent, law-abiding citizens.
Convicted terrorists are allowed to publish books, lead prayer groups with other inmates and use cell phones, effectively turning the country's prisons into a base for operations and recruitment drives.
These holier-than-thou figures are also subjects of the government's deradicalization program, which involves counseling terrorists to repent and reform themselves.
Scores of program graduates have had their sentences commuted after serving only a couple of years behind bars. More than a few have reappeared in national headlines as being suspects, yet again, in terrorism-related activities.
Meanwhile, the disturbing question of how many former convicts simply left prison only to rejoin the likes of Jemaah Islamiyah remains unanswered.
The problem of fundamentalism has been compounded by what some observers have coined "creeping Shariah."
Since Suharto's fall from power in 1998, politicians from dozens of local municipalities across the country have passed Shariah bylaws, in some cases bordering on the draconian in scope and punishment.
Despite loud protests from human rights groups and ordinary citizens alike, the Supreme Court has recently ruled that these laws cannot be overturned – even though, as all citizens know perfectly well, the Constitution provides for a secular state.
Moderate Muslim leaders are finally waking up. They believe this state of affairs serves as a clarion call for intrafaith dialogue.
But these well-intentioned Islamic scholars and imams – who would like to forge a consensus with fundamentalists on some yet-to-be-defined middle path – fail to understand a few essential truths.
First, fundamentalists are life-long subscribers to moral absolutism and a literal interpretation of scriptures; they are therefore unwilling to compromise their principles or even consider different views on the nature of Islam.
Second, moderates have mistakenly concluded that fundamentalists are waging a holy war. The reality is starkly different.
Fundamentalists are using Islam as an ideological shield for what is, in fact, a profoundly authoritarian-leaning political movement that aspires to undermine the democratic status quo.
Debates about Islam with fundamentalists would be like arguing with communist revolutionaries about competing strains of socialist theory; it makes for interesting and lively philosophical discussions, but ignores the main issue – namely, the struggle for power.
Another part of the problem has been the naivete of liberal politicians and nongovernmental organizations. Ever since JI's first terrorist attack in Bali, these two groups have been staunch advocates for "soft" policies.
Mindful of the excesses of state power during Suharto's New Order, the country's liberals still don't trust the police and military.
Suffering from a serious case of Post-Suharto Stress Disorder, these liberals are under the delusion that the specter of terrorism, hanging ever so gently over the heads of Indonesians like the sword of Damocles, could be exploited by those who would like to roll back democratic reforms.
They are also afraid – quite wrongly – that if the government cracks down too hard, there would be an eruption of Muslim anger in the streets.
In other words, liberals think appeasement will win the day. On the contrary, their liberal instincts have made them into the unwitting accomplices of the Islamists.
While it is true that an Abu Ghraib-type scenario needs to be avoided for both practical and moral reasons, the government is wrong-headed to be lenient.
Deradicalization policies might work well with a few lost souls, but the potential security risks far outweigh the perceived benefits. Granting light jail sentences for terrorists places innocents in harm's way, and it is counterproductive because the government forfeits its ability to deter.
Finally, allowing local governments to institute Shariah law not only contravenes the Constitution, it means the national leadership implicitly condones the tyranny of the few to invade the private lives of the majority against their will.
There has been plenty of talk about what should be done to halt the spread of fundamentalism. But so far, politicians have been either too fearful to act or overly enamored with their bland platitudes.
The lack of political courage to take firm action will make the situation only worse over time. For once, a stake should be driven through the heart of fundamentalism – to do otherwise only courts disaster.
[James Van Zorge is a manager of Van Zorge, Heffernan & Associates, a business consultancy based in Jakarta. He can be reached at jamesvanzorge@yahoo.com.]