Indonesia may see more sharia-based laws

[Brainsucker]

Alright, so, I hope everyone here is ready for a long read. I've tried to use easy, laymans english. Ask me if you want anything clarified. All video's and articles posted with summary in case you don't have time to watch/read.

First of all, I'll talk about the general 3 divisions of thought in regards to Pancasila-Sharia:

1. Pro-Secularist: Pancasila as a 'Hard Limit'
2. Moderate: Pancasila as a 'General Guideline'
3. Pro-Islamist: Pancasila as a 'Flawed Compromise'

Finally I'll close with a collection of my personal thoughts on the matter.

________________________​

Ever since independence, and in fact, before it. Just how much a role Islam would play in Indonesia's Governance was a hotly divisive topic. The main problem stemmed from the fact that during Independence Muslims made up a clear and strong majority of the population, but in terms of land ownership and control of natural resources... the minority was often almost equal to the Islamic majority.

A compromise was needed since multiple areas in Indonesia where the religious minorities, were majorities.

Not fully accurate, but gives you an idea on how unfeasible an purely Islamic Nation would be to keep together

​

As such, to settle that and numerous other considerations and dilemmas, the Pancasila was born.

It contains these 5 principles (Translated)

Panca=Five, Sila=Principles, So Pancasila is the 'Five Principles'
​

As you might be able to guess, the Pancasila can be interpreted in multiple ways. Indeed it has been by successive Indonesian governments. More on that later.

In terms of Pancasila and Shariah, schools of thought can be roughly divided into 3 schools.

How Pro-secularists view Islamisation, taken from the New York Times​

• Pancasila is a 'Hard Limit'

Held by pro-secularists, they view that Pancasila's first principle: "Belief in the one and only God." enshrines freedom of religion to the religions that the principle encompasses, and due to the other 4 principles, one form of religion should never be given preferential treatment as it would make the rest of Pancasila unfeasible. At least that's what they believe.

This faction believes that a marriage between religion and state, especially Islam as the majority religion, is going to create a 'duopoly' of indoctrination and allow evil individuals to easily justify cruelty against the people as "For the Greater Good"

Furthermore, they fear how a strong religious identity would come into competition with the national identity, weakening internal stability and fermenting insurrection.

A common motto is "If it isn't broken, why fix it?".

This was the strongly held belief of General Suharto, leader of the 'New Order' Government that led Indonesia from 1966 to 1998. Some nationalist parties today hold this stance.

For others, the strength of Pancasila is in its adaptability in the face of changing times and adversity​

• Pancasila is a 'General Guideline'

For these people, Pancasila's 5 principles are adaptable. They don't actually seek to change them, but they believe that the principles could be adapted according to current needs so long as it doesn't go too far.

Many of these people point to how Pancasila has continued to be national ideology even during the 'Old Order' Dictatorship, the "New Order" Dictatorship, and the Democratic "Reformation" era. Each of these times had differing interpretations of Pancasila, and it worked, giving each type of government legitimacy despite widely different styles of governance.

For them, inflexibility means brittle. Brittle breaks.

They don't mind Sharia inspired bylaws so long as no one tries to rewrite the constitution or the Pancasila. For them, "Sharia-inspired but Pancasila compliant laws" are not a self-contradiction. In fact, they tend to also be tolerant of protestant or other religion-leaning laws in areas where the religious minority have a clear majority. Bible inspired bylaws in Protestant Papua for example.

This group is quite diverse, since there is great differences in how each individual thinks "Adaptable" ends and "Subversive" begins. What they do agree on though is that Pancasila is a living law that organically evolves in interpretation, and that such adaptability is a strength, not a weakness. The Pancasila does not set hard limits, it sets up negotiation parameters and allows room for diplomacy among internal factions.

Pancasila is either obsolete, or a gross injustice to begin with. It was a lie!​

• Pancasila is a 'Flawed Compromise'

These are the people the other two groups agree to team up against. Be they separatists, islamists, or hard-core atheists, they believe that the Pancasila either goes too far, or does too little, and it cannot be salvaged.

It must be replaced, they say.

While still somewhere in the grey area between this group and the second group, there are political parties who make it clear that their end goal is to alter the Constitution and Pancasila along with it. While bordering on traitorous, they are given some level of toleration since many otherwise violent individuals instead voice their opinion through peaceful voting. Furthermore, being included in national government apparatus naturally dilutes their ideology, and exposes them to the perils of governing. Unlike other Islamist factions in the Islamic world, Islamist factions in Indonesia cannot paint themselves as saints and perfect beings, as they've been exposed to be similar to everyone else - corruptible and incompetent.

_______________________​

• Background

So, to be perfectly honest, Islam is imbedded into the culture of multiple areas of Indonesia, predominantly Kalimantan, Java, and Sumatera Island.

Altogether thats roughly 200 Million of Indonesia's 260 Million citizens. Of course, note that while the culture is heavily influenced by Islam in these areas, it is Islam that has been adapted to local conditions.

As it is, Javan Islamist thoughts are heavily influenced by the Hindu-Buddhist culture (Islamic Mysticism), Sumatera is influenced by Arabic Islam (Islamic Legalism), while Kalimantan is has a strong islamic identity as a balance of both (Islam Wasathiyyah/ 'Middle-Way' Islam). Sulawesi, on the other hand, has yet to settle on a strong Islamic school of teaching.

As such, there is strong support for nationalism based government even from Islamic Organizations, as an Islamic Nation is bound to have to pick a "Correct" form of Islam to promote. Chief among these supporters is the Nadhatul Ulama which considers itself a Champion of Islamic Nationalism, and its mandates the support of Pancasila in its organisational charter/constitution.

With 50 Million members, the Nadhatul Ulama is easily the largest Islamic Organization on Earth.​

Furthermore, in truth, the bickering about Shariah and Pancasila is missing the bigger picture in the Consitutional Court Ruling: The ever shifting tides between the Central and Local Governments.

The current Indonesia is often considered a Quasi-Federation. In that it is a weird mix of Federalist structures blended in with centralism and decentralisation. Every single year, the tide shifts a bit one way or another.

For example, although the constitutional court ruled that the home ministry can't unilaterally repeal bylaws, local governments have voluntarily given up their right to set up local business permits in order to facilitate the OSS, One Stop Service of business permits set up byu the central government. Focusing solely on the Pancasila-Sharia dillema is missing the bigger problem.

Personally, I believe that some level of religious-inspired bylaws are tolerable. I fully agree with the banning of subversive organisations like Hizbut Tahrir, but I also believe that this increased flexibility in the implementation of Pancasila - along with decentralisation - is what has allowed less armed conflict to break out. Religion - including Islam is deeply rooted in indonesia, trying to eradicate it from public life is idiotic and will cause more harm than good, but the Pancasila is a good compromise that protects us from the worst of problems of theocracy where anything and everything can be justified by "BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO".

I feel that people who idolise "Progressivism" are seriously blind to the societal breakdown in such countries. 40%+ rates of divorce, suicides, drug abuse, breakdown of family, ect, ect. The list goes on and on. Indonesia might be less developed than Malaysia or Singapore, but our citizens have more political freedom than Singapore, and our laws are less racist than Malaysia. In fact our murder rate is among the lowest in the world, below even Australia or Germany!

I Agree with Auz when he says that people need to serious stop looking at real life through cliche's and black-and-white morality. Thats only possible in Hollywood movies and games.

For the basis of my thoughts, here are 2 videos:

Summary: Indonesia has always been divided between hard-core nationalists and hard core Islamists. The source of stability in the post reformation era is the emergence of a moderate faction that the allows the other two sides to negotiate governance through them.

Summary: The source of Indonesia's stability and progress is not liberal values, not islamism, and not rule of law. Its the ability to negotiate the slew of differences and the mental adaptability of its people and leaders.

Good reading. You have broaden my view.

 

[Logam42]

A good Summary and opinion backed by good research, although i am differ at some points, but let agree to disagree as it was our strength to compromize the matter of our principe.

The greatest concern is how far we can compromize such conditions and the recent example give me headache more than other cases, the pardon of Abu bakar Baasyir. Tolerating people need red line to made so people can upheld law and order as the highest order in sovereign state, this one is a clear case where he doesnt acknowledge Pancasila and nkri, and called police forces and government as kafir. He is a clear traitorous bastard and even give support to terrorist activities and had clear links with many terrorist cell around Indonesia. There is no reason to give him pardon even if he is really old and sick.

I agree. I don't follow politics too much right now (I know who I'll pick so why the hell bother?), but Abu Bakar Baasyir being released, even while still denying the Pancasila was a mistake.

Unfortunately real life facts rarely selling as well as movies, video games, or fake news.

Yeah. Its been a long time I've even bothered to write a forum post like this, sometimes it just feels like a waste of time. Glad the response so far has been positive.

 

[prashantazazel]

According to my Hindu neighbour, the temples and the gurdwaras are empty, except on special occasions, only the mosques are full. Churches are closing down as they are lying empty, mostly old people in the congregation.

It seems Islam is outlasting all the others.

You are reasonably correct in your observations. Muslims are more likely to stick to their faith. But this adherence to faith is declining, even amongst them.
The poor in any country tend to be more religious than the well off folk. Muslims are economically worse off in India currently.

You will rarely find a guy with a job who prays during working hours (unless he has formed an exclusive group).5 times Namaz is even rarer. Mosque attendance is visibly lower aside from Fridays.
The dressing sense is changing. Western wear is becoming the norm in middle class families.
(last point, for all faiths - the younger generation sleeps around a lot, but they still tend to marry within their own community.)
None of this is good for the future outlook of any faith.


Personally, I like it.

 

[Zsari]

There will always be difference of opinions. Why stop at religion?

If some of your society want Buddhist China instead of Communism, then you have to listen to them right, according to your logic?

You definition is arbitrary and out of touch with reality.

Muslims will always move towards Islam, this is why we are called Muslims in the first place.

Buddhism has been in China for millennium, and in no instance was there an attempt by Buddhists to enforce its religions code as state law. If it did, it would have been booted out of China centuries ago. The same can be said of any religion in China.

 

[trishna_amṛta]

they still tend to marry within their own community.

Where I come that is mostly due to socio-economic pressure rather than any religion or custom, and once the person were able to "liberate" themselves from such pressure it's will be a whole different story.