The first, which has recently been passed, is the Law on Resolving Social Conflict. The second, which has yet to be passed, is the Draft Law on Inter-religious Harmony.
These proposals are based on the simplistic assumption that inter-religious conflict occurs because there are no laws against it. The new legislation addresses the perceived need for greater regulation of religious affairs and the criminalisation of religious offences. Yet it fails to identify both the real political, economic and social factors behind religious intolerance and conflict.
For example, there is often a real or perceived economic disparity between a Christian congregation that intends to build a church and local Muslim residents. Opposition to the construction of churches can be diffused if a church is willing to allow local Muslim residents to work as parking attendants. Such an arrangement ensures the local community benefits from the church by way of employment.
Further, there are also the contributing issues of poor law enforcement and the complicity of law enforcement agencies in social conflicts. In the Cikeusik incident of February 2011, for example, the police were clearly informed and aware that a demonstration or attack was going to take place at the house of an Ahmadi leader in Cikeusik. The police failed to intervene and protect the 17 Ahmadis in the face of a crowd of 1,000, which led to the brutal deaths of 3 Ahmadis.
For example, the Law on Resolving Social Conflict presumes that current social and religious conflicts are caused by the police’s lack of power to break up ethnic and religious conflicts, including disputes over permits for places of worship. This new regulation thus confers wide powers on the police, allows national or regional governments to declare a 90-day state of emergency, and enables the government to call on the military for ‘assistance’.
The law is problematic because it indicates a return to authoritarian policies of military control over religious and ethnic communities, and relies on a Social Conflict Resolution Commission to resolve conflict. The Commission, which has not been established yet, will include representatives from the police, the army, religious leaders, and the parties involved in the conflict. The Commission is a cause for concern because it is described as existing ‘outside of the courts’, suggesting that its decisions cannot be reviewed and, therefore, cannot be held to account.
The second proposal, the Draft Law on Inter-religious Harmony, also fails to address the real factors and causes at the root of religious tensions. The Draft Law circulated in late 2011 attempts to regulate issues as broad as religious education, burial practices, proselytisation and religious celebrations. It also defines an array of offences that would amount to the crime of blasphemy.
The suggestion of a Draft Law on Inter-religious Harmony has been around in various forms since the 1980s. The fact that this law has not yet been passed suggests that there is no agreement on what it means to regulate religion in Indonesia, or to what extent religious affairs should be regulated. While it is generally accepted that states may regulate the activities of religious communities in the interests of social order and public harmony, there is much debate over the best way to achieve this.
While Indonesia has made a remarkable transition to democracy and made significant progress in many areas including the issue of terrorism, it has failed to make real progress in regard to inter-religious conflict. The ongoing opposition and incidents of violence against religious minorities, such as the Islamic sect Ahmadiyah or Christians, are not caused by a lack of police powers to prosecute offenders.
Rather, these disputes arise due to a complex series of factors, including a lack of basic law enforcement and indications that law enforcement agencies may be complicit in — or unwilling to — address religious conflict. As the 2014 national elections approach, the need for the government to address religious intolerance remains a pressing concern. The search for an appropriate way to regulate religion must complement rather than replace efforts to create other (non-legal) means of preventing and resolving inter-religious tensions.
Melissa Crouch is Research Fellow at the Melbourne Law School, the University of Melbourne.
It seems oil rich countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Nigeria have similar experiences regarding the degree of religious intolerance during the hegemonic challenge era. Although none of these countries had such an experience during the Cold War period, Indonesia, Malaysia and Nigeria are now witnessing unprecedented hatred – killings and burning churches. Because oil is an intrinsic natural resource with military implications in the planning of the hegemonic challenge, adding the international level of analysis to the issue would make the research more focused and to point. Adding strategic variable to the education and law variables and expanding the framework of analysis beyond national level to international level of analysis, the research would shed light and provide explanation badly needed to prevent future occurrence.
You have a good point of view here Suzy. Indonesian people generally have low education and they can be provoked by other people with an interest in religious intolerance and conflict.