Extending Leadership of Tolerance
.
Promoting tolerance is an obligation for anyone who is aware that tolerance is a major value, fundamental behavior and principal way of treating others amidst diversity, whether the diversity is natural or artificial.
Therefore, each element of the nation has to take initiative in spearheading the promotion of tolerance in accordance with their level of authority and sphere of influence.
Tolerance leadership refers to efforts to give meaning to the freedom of religion in 2017, which was released on Jan. 15, 2018 by the Setara Institute. At present, the leaders who act as catalysts in promoting tolerance are a highly relevant issue amid the rise of identity politics, religious radicalism, violent extremism and the revival of movements against Pancasila and state democracy.
Exploring data on freedom of religion violations in 2017, the writer personally sees that we have an opportunity to encourage the state political leadership and public initiatives to be more intensive and courageous. There are several conditions that indicate that the time is ripe for creating momentum to intensify and expand the promotion of tolerance.
Promotional opportunity
First, there has been contextual progress or improvements, marked by improvements in several variables of freedom of religion in Indonesia. Based on the Setara Institute’s latest research, a significant decline has been recorded in the number of events and acts that violate freedom of religion. In 2017, there were "only" 155 events (a decrease of 53 from the corresponding period in 2016) and 201 acts (compared to 270 acts in 2016).
The decline in the number of such events and acts corresponds with a decline in several other variables: 1) violations against religious minority groups, such as Christians, Ahmadiyah and Shia, which have dominated the list of victims in nearly every research and monitoring period, and 2) disruptive activities against places of worship, which are also much lower than the average number of disturbances recorded in previous research periods.
Second, quantitative improvement has been observed in the involvement of state actors in freedom of religion violations, which can be read as an opportunity to promote perspectives, competencies and even partiality among state governance bodies toward an environment that is more conducive to promoting tolerance. The Setara Institute’s 2017 data shows that violations committed by state actors throughout 2017 were much lower than in 2016.
The National Police, which – according to the Setara Institute\'s records – was the highest contributor to violations by state actors in 2016 with 37 violations, committed "only" 17 violations this year. Moreover, even though they still rank among the highest violators in the state actor category, local governments "only" committed 25 violations (a decrease of 10) from the previous year.
Third, there has been a rise in civil society movement, which has thus far kept silent (the silent majority) and has been considered too conceding, taking initiative and a leading role against intolerance, discrimination and ideological teachings that encourage violent extremism and the destruction of values and other aspects based on Pancasila that urge peaceful coexistence amidst diversity.
Two agendas
With such conditions indicating a positive opportunity, the government, under President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo, has to take a major role in prioritizing the promotion of our inherited tolerance during his leadership.
Jokowi has social, political and legal capital, as well as a network and sphere of power that is much wider than that of the fourth president, Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid, who boldly fulfilled his promise of equality for the Chinese and Confucian minorities.
Promoting tolerance must be the President’s priority in realizing an Indonesia that guarantees social and political inclusion, as well as civil rights, in freedom of religion as mandated in Article 28E, Paragraph (1) and (2) and Article 29, Paragraph (2) of the 1945 State Constitution.
The two main agendas toward this goal is 1) settling long-standing problems over minority groups whose rights have been violated, and 2) reforming regulations and policies that contradict Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, and which have become the juridical basis for intolerance and discrimination against minorities.
No less urgent is the need to resolve the major problems and violations that have continued to recur within the last decade, when compared with the stalled infrastructure projects that the President has proven capable of resolving and pushing ahead.
Several of these issues that deserve mention are: a) the expulsion of religious minorities from their native kampungs, especially the Ahmadiyah congregation in Wisma Transito, Mataram, and Shia Sampang residents in Sidoarjo, East Java; b) the development of two churches, GKI Yasmin and HKBP Philadelphia, in Bogor and Bekasi regency, which legally won their cases at the cassation level of the Supreme Court, but have still not been able to fulfill their basic right to build the houses of worship; and c) the criminalization of faith, under which a number of prisoners of conscience remain in jail.
Moreover, the President also needs to lead immediate reforms on regulations that do not comply with provisions in the Constitution, as long as such reforms fall within the scope of his authority as the head of state and the government. Several agendas that need serious attention include the following.
First, the abolition of the articles on blasphemy, through amending of Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 and Article 156a of the Criminal Code, which have been used frequently and recently by vigilante groups to persecute critical and progressive groups under the pretext of blasphemy.
Second, the reevaluation, revision and repeal of Joint Ministerial Regulations No. 9/2006 and No. 8/2006 issued by the Religious Affairs Minister and Home Minister (on Construction of Houses of Worship) and Joint Ministerial Regulations No. 3/2008, No. KEP-033/A/JA/6/2008 and No. 199/2008 (on the Ahmadiyah) issued by the Religious Affairs Minister, the Attorney General and Home Minister. These two joint ministerial regulations require urgent reform because they are frequently used to justify discrimination and intolerance against citizens of different faiths.
Third, the evaluation and harmonization of regional regulations that are discriminatory toward minorities, including women. In 2016, the government conducted a massive regulatory harmonization through the Home Ministry by revoking 3,143 regulations that hindered investment. Such revocation measures should be urgently taken against regional regulations that destroy national unity and integrity by discriminating against women and minority groups in the regions.
Sign of leadership
Regarding these two major agendas, the government has already sent a strong signal of its political will to realize the ideal of "one for all", as declared by the nation’s founders. However, the government then seems to retreat a few steps once it faces counterdiscourse, especially from established circles of the religious majority, as well as intolerant groups, although they are not many in number.
First, Nawacita, which unfortunately has not been seen as a guide for the development of social inclusion, let alone politics, of religious minorities. Second, the discourse over abolishing the religion column on forms has simply evaporated. Third, the fulfillment of the right to religious education in formal institutions for citizens of faith, which has been stipulated in Culture and Education Minister Regulation No. 27/2016 but has been problematic in its implementation, due to the availability of resources.
Fourth, the government has supported the inclusion of religious followers in the religion column of ID cards, which was finally granted in a judicial review of the Population Administration Law by the Constitutional Court, but which has seen no progress in its implementation until the present day.
Finally, we must appreciate the state institution for Pancasila ideology development as was initially established as a Presidential task force, and whose status was upgraded to a ministerial-level body. The institution’s establishment can be viewed as the government\'s answer to fears of increasingly strong identity politics that has been accompanied by a widening resistance toward others, the manipulation of primordial sentiments or SARA (tribal affiliation, religion, race and intergroup) issues, especially religion and ethnicity, in public and political spaces.
It will be unfortunate if the signals of strong leadership are left to fade and disappear, simply because the President is preoccupied by power politics in these election years. It is hoped that this is and will not be the case.
Hendardi
Executive Board Chairman of the Setara Institute, Jakarta
