Putting a Check on Identity Politics
The emergence of religion-based political parties that contested the first general election in 1955 was also associated with identity politics.
What's wrong with identity politics? Will identity politics tend to move toward polarization that poses threats to national integrity?
These questions have been swirling in various public conversations and on social media, especially since the President delivered a warning in an official speech before the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR).
These questions have grounds to be raised, given the fact that politics using identity, especially religion, as an approach to build a political agenda, can be said to be ingrained in the nation’s history. This has been happening not exclusively these days, but since the early days of independence. Identity politics has indeed become part of the driving spirit of nationalism in fights for independence.
Also read:
> Strengthening National Identity
The emergence of "Islamic nationalists" and "secular nationalists", who competed against each other over the idea of the state philosophical foundation prior to the proclamation of 17 Aug., 1945, was to some extent tantamount to identity politics.
The emergence of religion-based political parties that contested the first general election in 1955 was also associated with identity politics. Until now, establishing a political party based on religion as ideology is legally permitted, although no religion-based political party, as history has shown, has ever won an election. Registry data on political parties at the General Election Commission (KPU) shows that those with adherence to religious identity are among the contestants for the 2024 general election.
Therefore, it is important for us to realize that identity politics does exist with us, though we must also acknowledge that identity politics, to some extent, does have the elements of a threat.
Given these facts, identity politics is inseparable from the nation’s political journey. As a country with a Muslim majority, it is undeniable that Islam has strong current in Indonesia’s political waters. Therefore, it is important for us to realize that identity politics does exist with us, though we must also acknowledge that identity politics, to some extent, does have the elements of a threat.
Levels of identity politics
Identity politics is defined as a political approach used by groups with ethnic, cultural, religious or other bonds of identity in their struggle for certain purposes, especially in the political agenda for power.
Identity politics may be used in the context of political resistance or as a tool to stamp out the identity of a society. Identity is prone to being politicized into extreme interpretation with the motivation to instill support from people who find themselves in “the same boat” by virtue of ethnicity, religion or other bonding elements. While various community identities can be exploited to gather electoral support, religion is considered the most volatile identity to use.
That said, identity politics can be identified at several levels. First, identity politics is related to the use of certain identity symbols, including religion and ethnicity, to meet a political agenda through participation in an election. This can be seen, for example, in the existence of political parties that use the readily identifiable symbols, be they of religion or ethnicity. Likewise, legislative candidates using religious symbols in their promotional billboards or flyers and so on is also part of identity politics. Identity politics at this level should be commonly accepted and does not need to be disputed.
Second, identity politics is related to the use of religion as the ideological principle for political parties. Identity politics at this level, as mentioned at the beginning of this article, is not only legally permissible, but also already inherent in the nation’s history.
Third, identity politics is related to political activity that makes religious issues part of a political agenda and program. Religious issues are raised in campaigns by political parties or individuals to woo voters.
However, if identity politics related to this policy-making moves toward imbalance in accommodating the interests of various groups, it will trigger jealousy and discrimination.
The formulation of government policies often involves debate on religious issues. Identity politics in this regard should also be seen as normal. As a nation subscribing to religions, it is impossible for religious issues to be excluded from the government's policy-making. However, if identity politics related to this policy-making moves toward imbalance in accommodating the interests of various groups, it will trigger jealousy and discrimination.
Fourth, identity politics may ignite hatred between groups arising from political enmity. This is the most concerning level of identity politics because it can lead to potentially nation-destabilizing polarization. Identity-based hate politics is what President Jokowi was reminding about with the hope that there will be no hatred-loaded polarization of communities in the 2024 election.
Hate politics will justify any means, not only the use of hostile verbal offensives but also physical violence, to humiliate and eliminate political opponents. This animosity may drive an offensive at opponents with religious-embellished arguments, which will result in them feeling unsafe if they lose the political battle.
Being deeply rooted in the country’s political traditions, why does the identity politics leave Indonesia standing strong as a nation? One of the answers is that because the practiced identity politics did not breed hate politics. The turbulent political hype wore down soon once the contest was over.
This was exemplified by our founding fathers. Even though they differed in ideological orientations and political directions, respect for one another was firmly entrenched. However, if hate politics had been let loose, respect for political opponents would have no longer existed. As soon as the political contests concluded, so did the animosity toward political opponents.
Outside formal politics
The identity-based hate politics that has become a concern in many circles, including in President Jokowi’s, is mostly driven by informal political forces. Formal politics, such as political parties and legislative bodies, which sometimes turn to identity issues, operate under more checks. Political parties that adhere to religious principles or carry religious ideologies will moderate themselves because they must follow the rules.
They are unlikely to make gross statements to affront or demean other political parties. They do take spins at each other but will usually stop short of being tendentious toward identity-based hate politics.
This is different from the non-institutional groups, whose political movements are weighed down by identity-based hate politics from the very start. This can explain why identity politics is rife in the wake of escalated political hype, as in the case of 2019 general election, and in several regional elections, such as in Jakarta in 2017.
This is where the problem lies. Political parties should resist identity-based hate politics, instead of taking advantage of it.
During these heightened political moments, informal political forces that carry hate politics are rooted in the community strongly enough to dominate the public space, especially through social media. Unfortunately, formal political forces do not have enough filters to refine out this identity-based hate politics. They instead do not hesitate to collaborate with the hate politics proponents to gain electoral support. This is where the problem lies. Political parties should resist identity-based hate politics, instead of taking advantage of it.
Regardless of how political parties take an approach for their gain, identity-based hate politics is basically the tip of the iceberg. Underneath it are people’s twisted mindsets that contribute to hate politics. This may permeate from misinterpretation of religious teachings, the frustration of being socially marginalized or feeling unjustly treated. This mindset must be improved. Otherwise, hate politics will continue to simmer and may explode at any time when the moment comes.
Rumadi Ahmad
Rumadi Ahmad, Senior expert staff member at the Executive Office of the President, lecturer at the Sharia and Law School of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University (UIN) in Jakarta.
(This article was translated by Musthofid)
