Rabu, 31 Juli 2013

Mass Organization Law and the FPI conundrum

Mass Organization Law and the FPI conundrum
Tobias Basuki  ;   A Researcher at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta and Political Science Lecturer at Pelita Harapan University, Tangerang
          JAKARTA POST, 30 Juli 2013


“Allowing the government to disband organizations through the court may not necessarily violate democratic principles”


The most recent atrocities committed by members of the firebrand Islam Defenders Front (FPI) brought to the surface the complex and thorny issue in fine tuning dynamics between religion and state in Indonesia. It also brought up anew the debate about the controversial Mass Organization (Ormas) Law within civil society.

In regard to the Ormas law, civil society organizations and radical Islamist groups became unusual bedfellows in their opposition to the passing of the law by the House of Representatives, albeit for different reasons.

Civil society groups feared a return to an authoritarian rule akin to the New Order’s tight control over mass organizations. 

Radical Islamist groups, on the other hand, would love to have absolute control over society, as long as they are the ones controlling it. Their opposition to the law in this case is merely due to the fear that it may impact them directly, potentially getting them into trouble.

That debate almost immediately got a case study, debating FPI’s existence after its umpteenth violent act, in which its members were involved in running over and killing a pregnant woman with their car in a conflict with residents in Kendal, Central Java.

Civil society is split in their views on how to deal with the FPI. Intellectuals, moderating the outrage against the FPI, have been countering public cries to disband it. Civil society groups’ main argument against calls to disband the FPI is their attempt to remain consistent in upholding the right to freedom of association and expression, even if it means defending the rights of radical groups. 

This tenuous balance between upholding rights to association and expression versus dealing with perpetual violent acts by radical groups such as the FPI is dilemmatic. 

It is a conundrum democratic proponents must face. Although the Mass Organization Law is problematic in many ways (for example, its definition of mass organization and other technical details), allowing the government to disband organizations through the court may not necessarily violate democratic principles as feared by civil society groups.

Larry Diamond, in his seminal work Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation made a very clear distinction in defining civil society, a definition that would be very useful in giving a clear definition of mass organizations, which our law fails to address. 

Diamond defines civil society as “an intermediary phenomenon standing between the private sphere and the state. Thus it excludes parochial society: inward looking groups ...,” and it is “distinct from political society ... whose primary goal is to win control of the state or at least some position in it”.

Thus, religious groups and organizations essentially are not necessarily part of civil society and therefore not categorized as mass organizations. Religious organizations and institutions (mosques, churches) primarily looking inwardly in managing affairs of the organization and members should have free reign within their organizations without interference from the state.

However, the catch will be when a religious groups’ activity moves beyond its “private” function and enters the public sphere. In what Diamond called “performing mediating functions” acting as a “bridge” between the private interests of its group to the public sphere, they have become part of civil society and thus subject to laws concerning their activity.

A key principle Diamond underlined is the principle of pluralism and diversity to which mass organizations within civil society must adhere. Thus, any extremist group such as the FPI that “seeks to monopolize a function or political space in society, crowding out all competitors while claiming that it represents the only legitimate path”, has violated important democratic principles. Thus banning them with due process of the law would not be a violation of democracy. 

One may ask how it is different from the Ku Klux Klan, or the Westborough Baptist church in the United States. Both are extremely repulsive, bigoted groups allowed to exist in the US on the premise of freedom of speech.

One crucial difference is that groups do not, and cannot dominate the public sphere and crowd out competing voices in US civil society. They are fringe groups not attached to any wider movements that threaten democracy in the US. The Westborough group is the most hated group in the US, a laughing stock to any US citizen outside of its own members.

The FPI is different. Although its members are often dismissed as mere thugs, they represent a wider network of narrow-minded ideas that threaten Indonesia’s budding democracy. They have become effective extensions and “smashing tools” of proponents of these ideologies to root out conflicting ideas.

There are numerous poignant examples.

The group we often dismiss as “simple thugs” recently won a judicial review at the Supreme Court to abolish a national regulation on alcohol control, to basically allow regional administrations with “fundamentalist” tendencies to make their entire district or province “dry”. Have we not learned from the US prohibition era, and its epic failure?

The FPI has perpetrated countless acts of violence with near impunity. It attacked the police headquarters a few weeks ago. It even had the audacity to violently confront a peaceful movement of the Alliance for Religious Freedom at the National Monument in 2008. The FPI with other groups managed to outshout attempts to abolish the highly problematic Blasphemy Law, which is valid today.

The FPI has not only attacked revered figures such as Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid, but verbally threatened to overthrow the government in 2011. This alone should be enough cause to see the organization as fundamentally rotten in structure as it is not isolated actions of individual members.

Disbanding such a problematic organization does not contradict democracy. On the other hand, it would send a clear message that no group, for whatever “divine” reason, can repeat acts that threaten and bleed our democracy without repercussions. 

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar