Intervention of the State in Religion
In such a condition, the state only regulates religious life on the basis of adherence to the majority denomination. Religion is regulated in such a way based on the principle of democratic majoritarianism.
Going through and exploring the pattern of state-religion relationship in Indonesia is like surfing on a high, swift and wild sea wave.
It requires adequate technocratic expertise and skill for agents of the state to perceive and at the same time surmount this wave so as to get it under control and convert it into the nation’s productive driving force. A slight loss of focus will fling us into the sea and the mission of conquest will meet with failure.
Therefore, we need to identify the crucial spots that can cast us out and make us fail in building a pattern of state-religion relationship that is characterized by dignity, humanity and civility. This identification is intended to prevent the nation from getting trapped in the same mistake again and again in leading a religious life. The temptation to repeatedly make the same mistake is the most serious challenge in view of the tendency of the masses to provoke the state into entering “Batman traps”.
“Batman traps”
The unique pattern of the state-religion relationship in Indonesia offers opportunities for three “Batman traps”. The first trap is artificial-symbolical in nature. The state makes no intervention whatsoever in religion and allows it to progress in a business-as-usual manner. Religion is no more than a mere administrative affair regulating religious life on a routine basis: marriage-divorce, haji-umrah pilgrimage, religious education, conversion, data recording and regulation of worship-building construction.
Also read:
Religion and the National Education Road Map
It demands a transformative-productive role that designates religion as a force of productivity leverage of the nation in order to free religion from its mere business-as-usual routine.
The second trap is the opposite of the first: partial favoritism. This trap is marked by a patrimonial relationship of mutualism between the state and the power of the dominant religion.
Its impact is the strengthening of the dominant group on the one side and the systemic marginalization of minority groups on the other.
In such a condition, the state only regulates religious life on the basis of adherence to the majority denomination. Religion is regulated in such a way based on the principle of democratic majoritarianism. In this context, the state policy follows the aspirations of the majority group in the country. Its impact is the strengthening of the dominant group on the one side and the systemic marginalization of minority groups on the other.
The third trap is laissez-faire, typified by state distancing and state reluctance to get involved in the dynamism of religious life, especially because Indonesia is considered a secular country. There is excessive fear among policymakers as representatives of the state of regulating religious life in a just, partial and transformative way. This trap is in fact more akin to the pattern of state-religion relationship in most secular countries following the twin toleration paradigm (Stepan, 2000).
Public reason
Certainly, the three “Batman traps” are not an ideal model for the pattern of state-religion relationship in the country. In a state based on Pancasila, state intervention in religion is essentially not a criminal action prohibited by law. As I have previously written (Kompas, 7/3/2022), the state is demanded to be present in every heartbeat of the lives of its citizens, including their religious life.
The problem is that the nation often undergoes “presbyopia” in perceiving public rationale behind the presence of religion. The state’s presence and intervention in religion should be able to provoke public benevolence and give an advantage that can be felt by all citizens.
In the formula of John Rawls (1997), the involvement of religion in the public space should have adequate public reason. If it is to be regulated to become a public norm, religion should metamorphose into universal values that can be shared together by different religious adherents. However, the presence of religion in the public space should be founded on rational justification with public advantage as its basis. In this context, the state can facilitate the presence of religion in the public space through transformative policies.
Meanwhile, the particular values of religion should not be forced by its followers to become part of the public norm only because these values constitute the faith of the majority of religious believers. Even if it is to be formulated into a public regulation, there should be objectivization based on empirical data that its application can bring the public social order and common advantage. It must not be the reverse, with the policy even giving rise to friction, fragmentation and social conflict. In other words, the particular values of religion can only be realized in the space of private life.
So, at that instance, the religious values turn into a “public property” shared by all members of the public.
When the particular values of religion are transformed into common values in the public space, there is the risk of a shift in the aura of religion from religious-heavy to cultural-heavy. So, at that instance, the religious values turn into a “public property” shared by all members of the public.
At that moment, its sacred aura is replaced by a profane aura that grows into culture and history. In the theoretical framework of Robert N Bellah (Beyond Belief, 1967), there is a sublimation of religious values into civil religion as manifested in socio-cultural life.
Five main anchors
For whatever reason, the state must not distance itself from the life of its citizens, including their religious life. The state is demanded to be always present in the dynamism of religious life of its people. If necessary, the state is even allowed to intervene (in the form of “mild intervention”), encouraged and motivated by five main anchors: humanitarianism, public advantage, religious moderation, harmony or social harmony and public benevolence.
The first anchor, humanitarianism, places humans as the subject as well as target of religious adherence, who should have their honor and dignity safeguarded through religious policies. In this case, the state should not hesitate to regulate religion for the purpose of preserving universal humanitarian values for religious followers. Whatever action is taken by religious adherents, it must not harm universal humanitarian values. If this happens, the state should not hesitate to act against their violation.
The second anchor is public advantage (al-maslahah al-’ammah). This is in line with an Islamic legal norm: “public advantage is more prioritized than individual advantage”. There is also another principle: “there should be no
danger and it must not cause any danger”. Regarding advantage and harm in religious adherence, Izzuddin bin Abd al-Salam (Qawa ’id al-Ahkam Mashalih al-Imam, 1990) wrote: “Most of the advantage and harm of the world can be discerned by reason, at the same time serving as the greater part of sharia”. It means that human reason becomes a compass indicating public advantage as well as forming Islamic shariah.
The third anchor is religious moderation, comprising 1) embracing religion without violence, 2) religious tolerance, 3) vision of nationalism and 4) appreciation of local culture (Religious Affairs Ministry, 2019). As an important part of the National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN), all religious policies issued by the state are required to be based on and inspired by the four points above.
The presence of resistance to and rejection of the theological dimension of religious moderation becomes the homework that has to be jointly handled by agents of the state, religious leaders and public figures.
All elements of the nation should work together to maintain social harmony and religious concord because the religious life in Indonesia stands on the ideological-religious “ring of fire” that is liable to being exploded into a horizontal conflict.
The fourth anchor is social harmony and religious concord. The creation of more stable and permanent social harmony and religious concord of course requires not only adequate theological understanding but also an established economic-political dimension. All elements of the nation should work together to maintain social harmony and religious concord because the religious life in Indonesia stands on the ideological-religious “ring of fire” that is liable to being exploded into a horizontal conflict.
The fifth anchor, public benevolence, takes the form of democratic values, obedience to laws (constitutionalism), public civility and economic productivity of citizens. State intervention in religion should be directed to develop public benevolence: the type of benevolence different from individual and social benevolence. The development of this type of benevolence is believed to accelerate the nation’s advancement, at the same time affirming to the world that religion in this country is not a factor hampering the progress of the nation.
Masdar Hilmy
Masdar Hilmy, Professor and rector of Sunan Ampel State Islamic University, Surabaya, East Java
(This article was translated by Aris Prawira)
