Terrorism, Anarchism, and Deradicalization
As an elected president, Jokowi said he would pay attention to the resolution of the issue of radicalism in his second term.
This is one of the President’s great visions. Of course, a big vision means big challenges. As a first step, several ministries that have not been too intensively involved in handling radicalism have begun to be encouraged to play a more active role. Deradicalization is one of the special tasks of Coordinating Political, Legal and Security Affairs Minister Mahfud MD.
The problem is, radicalism is not well understood by all parties, let alone have an agreement that is agreed upon. Radicalism frequently has multiple interpretations, and tends to be a "judgment" on others. It can also stir controversy. Some parties use the term radicalism, even though what is meant is terrorism. Others use the term radicalism to refer to problems of intolerance, anarchism and the rejection of Pancasila and the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI).
Here, an initial conclusion can be drawn, behind the controversy over the term radicalism, there is a failure to define some core issues precisely and accurately.
There are many other subjective formulations of radicalism, including certain forms of clothing and expressions. When the term radicalism becomes controversial, some real problems that are not unanimously referred to as radicalism even become more acute. Acts of violence (from stabbing to bombing) have become increasingly unmanageable. Here, an initial conclusion can be drawn, behind the controversy over the term radicalism, there is a failure to define some core issues precisely and accurately.
Terrorism
The first problem is terrorism. Referring to Law No. 5/2018, terrorism is defined as "acts that use violence or threats of violence that create an atmosphere of terror or widespread fear, which can cause mass casualties, and/or cause damages or destruction to vital strategic objects, the environment, public facilities or international facilities with ideological, political or security interference ” (Article 1 Paragraph 2).
With that definition, the scope of terrorism is very clear. In fact terrorism should not be extended to radicalism, which tends to be subjective, considering that the definition has provided a very clear picture, including its motives; ideology, politics and security disturbances. Moreover, further provisions in this law do not only limit the issue of terrorism to bombings or attacks (acts of violence), but also the role and membership of a person in a terror organization, inside and outside the country (Article 12 A). It even also includes military training (Article 12B).
What has been misunderstood by many parties so far is that terrorism always seems to depart from radicalism (in the writer\'s opinion, the more appropriate term is anarchism or intolerance) or radicalism always ends with terrorism. This is not always the case. Some people become terrorists without going through a process of radicalization and there are those who are called radicals who do not become terrorists.
It is true that some people become terrorists after being radicalized. However, the numbers are too few to definitively say that radicalization always leads to terrorism. In short, terrorism is specific and cannot be extended into other spheres. In the case of acts of violence being committed, for example, terrorist groups often use non-conventional methods, such as bombings, shootings, and even urban warfare tactics.
While most people are afraid of death, terrorists embrace death. These groups can be specifically and definitively be defined as terrorist rather than radical groups.
In terms of number, terrorist groups are small. There are currently around 600 people jailed for terrorism offences. Although, this number increases if we count those who have already been freed, it is still a small number, especially when compared to the Indonesian population. However, considering the sadism and violence they commit, these groups cannot be underestimated. Moreover, they have a different orientation toward life. While most people are afraid of death, terrorists embrace death. These groups can be specifically and definitively be defined as terrorist rather than radical groups.
Anarchism
The second problem is anarchism. This problem might seem to have something in common with terrorism as both use violence to carry out their struggles. However, true anarchism is different from terrorism. In the case of violence being committed, anarchist or intolerant groups prefer conventional methods, such as stone throwing, use of sharpened bamboo, or other conventional weapons. This is also the case with their targets. In general, intolerant groups target immoral places, liquor sellers, or other places deemed to be forbidden by Allah.
However, the number of such groups is far greater than terrorist groups as the violence in this sphere often involves members of mass organizations, even organizations that are officially registered as legal organizations within the Indonesian legal system.
Like terrorist groups, acts of violence by these groups is a problem. Although often done in the name of protecting the community, the violence committed cannot be justified. Specifically and definitively, these groups can be labeled with the term anarchism rather than radicalism.
Terrorist groups oppose Pancasila and the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia as they are considered to be a thaghut system.
Terrorist groups oppose Pancasila and the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia as they are considered to be a thaghut system. Meanwhile, not all anarchism groups are anti-NKRI and Pancasila, although some of them fight in a non-violent way to replace the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia with the khilafah (caliphate) system of government.
Deradicalization
As the term radicalism is problematic because it tends to be subjective, the term deradicalization actually poses more or less the same problem. Before becoming part of legal language, the term deradicalization can be understood as an effort to make someone not become radical. Later, the term deradicalization became a legal term in line with the ratification of Law No. 5/2018 as a revision of Law No. 15/2003 on the Eradication of the Criminal Acts of Terrorism.
In this law, deradicalization is defined as "a planned, integrated, systematic and continuous process that is carried out to eliminate or reduce and reverse the understanding of radical terrorism that has occurred" (Article 43D, Paragraph 1). Deradicalization is carried out on suspects, defendants, convicts, offenders, ex-convicts of terrorism, and individuals or groups who have been exposed to radical terrorism (Article 43D Paragraph 2) through four stages: identification, rehabilitation, reeducation and reintegration (Article 43D Paragraph 4).
The writer guesses that the concept of deradicalization that is currently one of the norms in Law No. 5/2018 was adopted and developed from the BNPT deradicalization program above.
With such an understanding, the objects of deradicalization are those who have been exposed to radical terrorism (borrowing the terms used in this law). Meanwhile, efforts to deradicalize members of the general public who have not been exposed are not referred to as deradicalization, but counter-radicalization (Article 43C). The concept of deradicalization, which has now become a legal term, is similar to the deradicalization program developed and implemented by the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT), especially in the initial stage (around 2013). The writer guesses that the concept of deradicalization that is currently one of the norms in Law No. 5/2018 was adopted and developed from the BNPT deradicalization program above.
If this is correct, the adoption of the concept of deradicalization from program language to legal language has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are that because the processes have become legal norms they must be carried out. The weaknesses being that deradicalization becomes standardized and rigid.
Based on the writer\'s experiences over the last few years related to efforts to build peace, both inside and outside the penitentiaries, a large amount of energy is badly needed as well as caution, flexibility and courage to deal with those who are exposed to extreme understandings.
President Jokowi\'s big vision must be accompanied by the use of appropriate language. The next stage will be the selection and placement of the right people according to their expertise and needs in the field. And last but not least, organized management to ensure peace and realize an advanced Indonesia.
Hasibullah Satrawi, Alumnus of Al Azhar Cairo, Egypt; Observer of Middle East Politics and Islamic World