Indonesia is an extraordinarily resilient society. Its tolerant
culture, religious traditions, and diversity cannot be easily
subverted. Ample proof resides in what has proven a successful,
centuries-long struggle with Islamism and its precursors-a triumph
enshrined today in Indonesia's 10-year-old democracy. But
Indonesia's democracy is more than a shrine. It is the battlefield
in a continuing struggle of ideas.
Success sometimes breeds complacency. This can be said of
Indonesia as much as anywhere else in the world. It was certainly
the case in Indonesia's approach to international terrorism before
the wake-up call of the first Bali bombing. With interesting
applicability to current politics, overconfidence was an important
catalyst in the turmoil that culminated in dictatorship and the
slaughter of the 1960s.
It could also be argued that Suharto's misplaced confidence in
his ability to manage the nascent Islamist forces of his own era
tilled the soil for radical movements just now coming to maturity.
As members of Indonesia's current political elite wrestle with
those movements-and with one another for the spoils of
leadership-an outside observer and friend could be forgiven for
fearing that complacency is back as the biggest threat to
Indonesia's future.
Islamism's Electoral Momentum
The Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) is Indonesia's version of the
Muslim Brotherhood. It is focused, like no other party, on the
battle of ideas. And it is on a roll. In the 2004 national
elections, it won 45 out of 550 seats in the Indonesian lower house
(DPR), captured the speakership of the joint assembly (MPR), and
joined the government with three cabinet seats. At the local level,
largely out of the national and international spotlight, it has won
88 out of 149 elections.[1]
This past August, the PKS candidate came within a hair of
winning the governorship of Jakarta. Only a united opposition kept
him from power. Then, in mid-April of this year, with the
opposition divided and a minority of the vote, the PKS candidate
for Governor of West Java emerged victorious. In an election three
days later for Governor of North Sumatra, with the opposition once
again divided, the PKS won another key race.
Java is the world's most densely populated island. The province
of West Java alone has a population of 40 million people-more than
Malaysia, more than Australia, more than Taiwan. It is also home to
"suburban" Jakarta. The province of North Sumatra is home to
Indonesia's third-largest city, Medan, and a diverse population of
more than 11 million. Together, these two provinces alone
constitute 20 percent of Indonesia's roughly 240 million people.
These are no small victories, and there are more provincial and
local contests to come this year-more than one hundred of
them-before two years of politics culminates in elections for
parliament and president in 2009.
Politics Loves a Winner
The PKS's success recently prompted Golkar's leader in
Indonesia's parliament (DPR) to float a trial balloon. (Golkar is
the largest party in the DPR.) Of the four options that Golkar is
studying for contesting the 2009 presidential election, Priyo
Budisantoso said, one is a Golkar-PKS ticket. [2] This comes amid
rumors that President Yudhoyono, himself long engaged in a low-key
struggle with his Golkar Vice President, is also entertaining the
idea of contesting the 2009 elections with a PKS running mate.
In fact, parties across the spectrum are flocking to the PKS
banner. Among the first in line are parties in Riau, one of
Indonesia's richest provinces, which is facing a gubernatorial
election in August. The National Mandate Party (PAN), PKS's partner
in the West Java election, is a possible partner there, but so too,
according to press reports, are the United Development Party (PPP)
and President Yudhoyono's Party.[3]
The PKS is in the midst of a very effective charm offensive. It
presents itself to Indonesian voters as clean, effective, caring,
and moral. And perhaps most important, it has backed off demands
for establishment of an Islamic state governed by Sharia law and
instead appeals to support for "Islamic values."
For a growing number of Indonesians, this is a winning
combination.
The PKS-Brotherhood Nexus
The critical question is whether this political posture
represents a sincere transformation. Indonesian voters would be
well advised by their leaders to examine the extremist roots of the
PKS and the background of its leaders before drawing firm
conclusions.
The PKS Web site describes itself as an Islamic missionary
(da'wah) party that holds to the Brotherhood prescription of "Islam
as the solution."[4] It is a cadre-based party, in its
organization similar to communist parties. In an environment where
it is often difficult to know what exactly parties stand for, the
PKS is deeply ideological, with roots in the Islamist campus
movement (Tarbiyah) of the 1970s that popularized the ideas of the
Muslim Brotherhood and their intellectual founders, Hassan al-Banna
and Sayyid Qutb.
One commentator and critic of the PKS, Sadanand Dhume, describes
the Brotherhood-PKS connections as follows:
Nur Wahid…holds a BA, MA and PhD from the
Brotherhood-founded University of Medina in Saudi Arabia. Party
Secretary General Anis Matta graduated from the Jakarta branch of
Riyadh's Al-Imam Muhammad bin Saud University, also linked to the
Brotherhood. The party has the blessing of today's most prominent
Muslim Brother, the Egyptian-born cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who
believes that democratic means can be used to pursue Islamist
ends…[and] is quoted in the Justice Party's founding
manifesto.[5]
That "founding manifesto" of the party (Justice Party) that went
on to become the PKS also, according to Dhume, called explicitly
for the creation of an Islamic caliphate.
Gambling with Indonesia's Future
The Indonesian political elite know who they are dealing with.
They are simply gambling. They believe they can turn the PKS's
success to their own advantage-whether ultimately to the good of
the national interest or their own personal interests-while
simultaneously containing their aims. One cannot help but imagine
comparisons to Sukarno's effort 40 years ago to balance the
advantages and influence of the communists. His manipulations ended
in epic disaster for the country.
Rather than jockeying for partnership with the PKS, mainline
politicians would be better advised to spend their time addressing
the real grievances that fuel support for radical opposition:
corruption, poor public services, poverty, and the perceived lack
of real political choice. And the United States should do what it
can to help, whether with resources, economic opportunity, or just
honest advice.
Where Indonesia may be headed in the long term is of concern to
the United States for many reasons. Americans are not opposed to a
role for religion in the public square, as any perusal of American
history will attest. There is no reason that faith and liberty
cannot flourish together. This matters to Americans because, in a
world that accepts this as truism, we are all safer and our rights
are more secure. By the same token, we know that religious
intolerance and government coercion on behalf of one particular set
of religious beliefs are precursors of a wider tyranny and,
ultimately, insecurity.
The United States also has a geopolitical interest. To the
extent that the U.S. and Indonesia drift apart in their values,
they will find it difficult to align interests in the broadest,
most enlightened sense. Certainly, there is some tactical truth in
the adage that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend." But if we are
to fall back to an exclusive, calculating realpolitik, how we
define our "enemies" assumes paramount importance.
In some areas, this does not present a problem. The threat of a
burgeoning Chinese presence in Asia, for instance, may become
obvious enough that Indonesia and the U.S. ultimately join in
countering it, whatever the politics in Jakarta.
But would an Indonesian government in which key players harbor
the goal of achieving an Islamic state-and perhaps a global
caliphate-share the American interest in countering extremism? The
question answers itself. The global fight against terrorism is not
just a fight against tactics. It is a war against an Islamist
ideology that shelters terrorism. It can only be fought on both
fronts. Ultimately, it cannot be co-opted.
Conclusion
Indonesia is not on the cusp of a sudden turn to extremism. Its
wellspring of tolerance is deep, and there are a great many good
people prepared to fight for its preservation. The real danger is
that complacency and political opportunism will facilitate a
slower-burning Islamist threat that is on them before they fully
recognize its implications. Political posturing and maneuvering
today could well end in disaster for Indonesia tomorrow.
Walter Lohman is
Director of the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage
Foundation.
[1]
"Early wins in N. Sumatra, Java, buoy PKS," The Jakarta
Post, April 18, 2008, at http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/04/17/
early-wins-n-sumatra-java-buoy-pks.html (April 24,
2008).