Print 
PDF
“It is fashionable these days for Western leaders to praise Indonesia as a model Muslim democracy,” writes Andreas Harsono, citing Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s statement, “If you want to know whether Islam, democracy, modernity and women’s rights can coexist, go to Indonesia.”
The Obama administration has reportedly considered the country as an example for ‘Arab Spring’ transitions, studying the work of prominent scholars like Duke University’s Donald L. Horowitz who has written authoritatively in his latest book on Constitutional Change and Democracy in Indonesia and in the Journal of Democracy on such politically delicate issues as the intersection of democratic constitutions with shari‘a (Islamic law).
But recent events are casting doubt on the country’s credentials as a paradigm for the Arab Spring transitions, prompting a Muslim democratic commentator to note that it is transitioning “from an authoritarian state to a state without authority.”
The influence of radical Islamist groups attracted worldwide media attention with last week’s police ban on pop superstar Lady Gaga, and radicals recently launched a violent attack on a lecture by the liberal Canadian Muslim Irshad Manji. But the militants’ growing political leverage presents a more serious threat to the country’s democratic culture than these high-profile incidents suggest, say analysts.
“While Indonesia has made great strides in consolidating a stable, democratic government after five decades of authoritarian rule, the country is by no means a bastion of tolerance,” says Harsono, a researcher for the Asia division at Human Rights Watch:
The rights of religious and ethnic minorities are routinely trampled. While Indonesia’s Constitution protects freedom of religion, regulations against blasphemy and proselytizing are routinely used to prosecute atheists, Bahais, Christians, Shiites, Sufis and members of the Ahmadiyya faith — a Muslim sect declared to be deviant in many Islamic countries. By 2010, Indonesia had over 150 religiously motivated regulations restricting minorities’ rights.
“The Ahmadiyya Muslim community is perhaps the most persecuted,” Benedict Rogers, who works for the London-based Christian Solidarity Worldwide, writes in the New York Times:
Violent attacks against this group, whose beliefs are considered heretical by many conservative Muslims, have increased significantly. Last year I met victims of one of the worst outbreaks of violence, an attack on Ahmadis in Cikeusik on Feb. 6, 2011, which left three people dead. One man described how he was stripped naked and beaten severely and a machete was held at his throat. He was dragged through the village and dumped in a truck like a corpse. Another man fled into a fast-flowing river, pursued by attackers throwing rocks and shouting “kill, kill, kill.”
He hid in a bush, dripping wet and extremely cold, for four hours. A third suffered a broken jaw, while a fourth, pursued by men armed with sickles, machetes and spears, was detained by the police for three days, treated as a suspect not a victim. Of the 1,500-strong mob that attacked 21 Ahmadis, only 12 people were arrested and prosecuted, according to The New York Times. Their sentences were between three and six months.
More disturbing is that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono “is not simply turning a blind eye; he has actively courted conservative Islamist elements and relies on them to maintain his majority in Parliament, even granting them key cabinet positions,” writes Harsono. “These appointments send a message to Indonesia’s population and embolden Islamist extremists to use violence against minorities.”
Lauded as a democratic beacon in a volatile region, Indonesia’s reform process was characterized by a “remarkable opening-up of political space [and] regeneration of civil society.” Its transition reportedly has a particular resonance for US President Obama, who lived there as a child and recently praised its shift from authoritarian rule in a speech in Jakarta.
But just as illiberal forces have moved to exploit the openings presented by the Arab awakening, militant groups are seeking to reverse Indonesia’s democratization.
Muslim democrats and civil society groups have demonstrated that radical Islamist groups and their toxic ideology can be confronted and defeated, says Rodgers.
“It is not too late. There are some excellent Indonesian Muslim organizations such as the Wahid Institute, founded by former President Abdurrahman Wahid, and the Maarif Institute, whose work should be supported,” he notes.
“If President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono acted, he would have the silent majority behind him. His government made progress in tackling terrorism, but it should not shirk its responsibility to fight the ideology that underpins terror.”
As the United Nations reviews Indonesia’s human rights record this week in Geneva, it should call on Yudhoyono “to crack down on extremists and protect minorities,” Harsono writes.
“Yudhoyono needs to take charge of this situation by revoking discriminatory regulations, demanding that his coalition partners respect the religious freedom of all minorities in word and in deed, and enforcing the constitutional protection of freedom of worship,” he argues. “He must also make it crystal clear that Islamist hard-liners who commit or incite violence and the police who fail to protect the victims will be punished.”
Indonesia has gone through a transition “from an authoritarian state to a state without authority,” says a moderate Islamic commentator.
“The stability and prosperity of the world’s biggest Muslim nation is of immense economic, security, and geopolitical importance,” analysts agree, so the country’s democratic backsliding and its “inward and backward’’ shift towards growing economic nationalism are causing concern:
President Yudhoyono’s own indecisiveness partly reflects his lack of authority under Indonesia’s multi-party Parliament. While still popular, he runs a minority government that is hostage to shifting allegiances. The democratic era has devolved power to regional governments. There is no clear successor for the 2014 presidential election. And Indonesia’s basic political cleavage between Islamism and secular nationalism drives personality, rather than policy, competition.
This article has 2 responses
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,IDN,,4fbcbd842,0.html
Indonesia: Four years of falling short on human rights commitments
Indonesia’s human rights record will be reviewed for the second time on Wednesday 23 May 2012 before the UN Human Rights Council. ARTICLE 19 has called for the UN member states to raise concerns to Indonesia regarding its State Intelligence Law, violations of the Ahmadiyah’s right to freedom of religion, in addition to the violence and free speech restrictions within West Papua.
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Working Group reviews the human rights records of UN member states once every four years. Indonesia was first reviewed by the UPR on 9 April 2008. This week, Indonesia will be one of the first countries to undergo its second cycle of UPR reviews.
While recognising progresses as highlighted by a vibrant media sector and the recent reversal of a book banning law, ARTICLE 19 believes that the Indonesian government has fallen short of meeting its obligations and fulfilling the agreed recommendations as set out during its first UPR cycle. ARTICLE 19 calls on Member states at the UPR to place pressure upon Indonesia to carry on with the necessary legal reforms, and put an end to the discrimination and censorship against the legitimate expression of the Ahmadiyah and West Papuans.
ARTICLE 19 main concerns include:
The State Intelligence Law and its potential to violate freedom of expression,
Discrimination against minority religious groups, particularly the Ahmadiyah,
Restricted access to West Papua and prevention of pro-independence activities,
The State Intelligence Law (SIL)
The SIL greatly broadens the power of the State Intelligence Agency, Badan Intelijen Negara (BIN). The law’s vague terminology equips BIN with the ability to use legal mechanisms to suppress critical voices and political opponents. The vague phrasing of crimes, which includes a negligence clause, makes human rights defenders particularly vulnerable to criminal prosecution and can lead to a culture of self-censorship. Furthermore, vague terms in the SIL have potential to conflict with the terms as used under other laws, such as the Law on Public Disclosure, the difference of which is critical for the functioning of media and civil society. The SIL also provides BIN with broad and unchecked power, and gives them authority over foreigners and foreign institutions as well.
On 1 May 2012, ARTICLE 19 submitted an amicus brief for the judicial review of the SIL to the Constitutional Court of Indonesia, highlighting that the law contains a number of provisions that are in contravention of international human rights law on freedom of expression and access to information.
Discrimination against the expression of minority religious groups, particularly the Ahmadiyah
Although the Indonesian Constitution protects religious freedom, ARTICLE 19 believes that the Indonesian government’s laws, policies and practices discriminate against the legitimate expression of religious minorities, particularly members of the Ahmadiyah.
The 1965 Defamation of Religions Law imposes criminal penalties of up to five years imprisonment on individuals or groups that “deviate” from the basic teachings of the official religions. Furthermore, The Joint Decree of the Minister of Religious Affairs, the Attorney General and the Minister of Interior from June 9 2008, forbids the Ahmadiyah from “conveying, endorsing or attempting to gain public support”. This denies them the right to freely express their religious beliefs and further erodes religious tolerance in Indonesia.
On 6 February 2011, approximately 1,500 Islamist militants descended upon Umbulan Village, Cikeusik Sub-District in what was a pre-mediated plan to “sweep? the Ahmadiyah. The police had arrived earlier amid the threats to provide security, but their small presence proved to be grossly insignificant to prevent the attack. Using extreme brutality, the militants killed three Ahmadiyah members and seriously injured five.
Restricted access to West Papua and prevention of pro-independence activities
The Indonesian government continues to have deep mistrust of West Papuan activities, with peaceful political expressions often stigmatized as being ‘separatist’, which is the most common justification for indiscriminate operations against ‘suspected militants’. Foreign journalists, human rights researchers and human rights organisations are not granted access to West Papua or are very restricted in their movements. Furthermore, a number of individuals have been faced with criminal prosecutions for displaying regional symbols. For example, the Morning Star has long been the regional symbol associated with the Free Papua Organisation (OPM) and remains banned, and those displaying it have been met with aggression and imprisonment. However, the raising of a flag or displaying of symbols is a non-violent act protected under the right to freedom of expression.
Although it is acknowledged that members of the OPM often use aggressive tactics to assert their views, it is the obligation of the Indonesian government to respond proportionally to all cases of pro-independence activities, and to ensure that West Papuans can fully exercise their right to freedom of expression.
In response to these concerns, ARTICLE 19 calls on the UN Human Rights Council to take forward clear and strong recommendations to the Indonesian government, namely:
Repeal the State Intelligence Law, or amend it immediately to meet international human rights standards. Vague terminology in the law should be clearly defined;
To respect and protect religious freedom, including the legitimate expression of minority religious faith;
Repeal the 1965 Defamation of Religions Law and the 2008 Joint Ministerial Decree prohibiting the Ahmadiyah. The government must take all necessary measures to ensure that minority groups can safely express their views or religions, including by preventing violence against them, protecting them against acts of violence and investigating all acts of violence against them;
To allow foreign journalists, human rights researchers and human rights organisations access to West Papua;
To respect the right of West Papuan activists to peacefully express their political legitimate views, including with regard to self-determination.
Why would someone like Lady Gaga, who strongly defends human rights,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/08/lady-gaga-ends-target-lgbt_n_833209.html
use a company whose managing director
http://www.eps.ag/en-au/kontakt/kontakt1.aspx
supports Griffith University
http://www.griffith.edu.au/business-government/griffith-business-school/alumni
which tried a secret deal with Saudi Arabia,
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/32626.html
a regime with one of the worst human rights records in the world?
http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/saudi-arabia