The government is muddling the logic of defense policy by classifying lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) culture as a non-military threat. The regulation conflates the moral views of the majority with threats to the state.
The controversial provision, contained in the Presidential Regulation on the 2025-2029 General State Defense Policy issued last year, has recently resurfaced. The renewed LGBTQ debate came as the government faces mounting pressure from a worsening economy, rising fuel prices, and increasing costs of basic necessities. The re-emergence of such a sensitive issue amid growing public anxiety deserves to be dissected further.
Any threat to the state should be assessed based on its capacity and impact. Terrorism threatens lives through violence. Cyberattacks can cripple national infrastructure. Drug trafficking involves organized criminal networks and harms societies. Separatism threatens territorial integrity. But what capacity does LGBTQ have against national sovereignty, territorial integrity, or national security? This logic is difficult to comprehend.
Rather than offering measurable assessments, the government is exploiting the vague term "LGBTQ culture." It remains unclear what constitutes as dangerous: the existence of people with certain sexual orientations and gender identities, their expression, or their efforts to obtain equal rights? The consequences of this ambiguity could be far-reaching. Media outlets reporting on LGBTQ issues or civil society organizations advocating for minority rights could also be accused of promoting "LGBTQ culture."
There is no doubt that the majority of Indonesians still hold conservative views toward LGBTQ people. Many reject them on religious and moral grounds. The state needs to understand this social reality, and not seek to transform the majority opinion into national defense doctrine. Majority disapproval does not automatically make a minority group a threat to the state.
It becomes clear to see how government policies are serving as a political accommodation to conservative groups. Discrimination against LGBTQ+ people is likely to receive broad public approval with almost no electoral risk. In a time of widespread concern over a weakened economy, corruption, inequality, and poor public services, aligning with the views of the majority becomes an easy way for the government to signal that it is listening to public sentiments.
Such discrimination has long been institutionalized. In 2023, Arus Pelangi documented at least 45 discriminatory regulations against LGBTQ community, many of which were local ordinances. Instead of reviewing or repealing these regulations, the central government is reinforcing them by adding LGBTQ to its list of non-military threats. Consequently, and to no one's surprise, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) is now citing the presidential regulation to justify its opposition to LGBTQ behavior and campaigns, advocating for their criminalization.
Labeling LGBTQ as a non-military threat transforms social prejudice into an official state policy. If the majority opinion is used as the basis for defining threats, its boundaries become increasingly malleable. Today, it is LGBTQ people. In the future, religious minorities, followers of particular beliefs, or any other social group that differs from dominant societal values could be given the same label.
For the government, portraying a minority group that has already been constrained by decades of discriminatory regulations as a threat may be easier than addressing the public's genuine concerns. But this is precisely where the logic breaks down, and where the irony lies. How can a group that has long been the target of discrimination and intimidation suddenly be labeled as threatening?
– Read the complete story in Tempo English Magazine
Source: https://en.tempo.co/read/2113752/the-flawed-logic-of-state-threat