Islam and Politics in Southeast Asia
We have two days conference on Expression of Islam in Recent Southeast Asia’s Politics, October 13-14, 2010. Prof. Mitsuo Nakamura (Chiba University Japan) and Prof. Hisako Nakamura (Bunkyo University Japan), Dr. Ahmad Sahidah (University Sains Malaysia) and Dr. Mohd. Zailani Mohd Yusoff (University Utara Malaysia) and many scholars from IAIN Sunan Ampel and UIN Malang present their paper for this conference. The Conference was done in the Meeting Hall, Rectorate, IAIN Sunan Ampel, Surabaya.
In this moment, I present my paper by the topic “Islam and Politics in Southeast Asia: A Preliminary Note”, as welcoming speech for this conference. Because of the situation, I can’t read all of this paper, so that, I just present the summary of it.
Almost all countries in Southeast Asia have undergone the process of democratization. Empirically, Southeast Asian countries already experienced a long period of democratization. However, it seems that their democracy is pretty fluctuate.
We can use some examples of democracy in Southeast Asian countries, it can be seen that the democracy used has a taste of local interpretation. It means that there is a modification in the system of democracy. The obvious example can be found in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand.
It is known that the relation of Islam and politics has three main typologies. They are integrated relation of Islam and politics, symbiotic mutualism and separated one. Integrated relation is a view which states that the relation of Islam and the State is unseparated. Islam cannot be separated from politics and vice versa. This concept was developed by the Egyptian thinker Hassan al Banna, Sayyid Qutb in Pakistan, Taqiyuddin Nabhani in Lebanon and so forth.
The next one is the model of symbiotic mutualism. It is a relation in which Islam and the state need each other. Countries need religion as a foundation for strengthening the morality of their apparatuses as well as the society. On the other hand, religion requires the State to develop themselves in the midst of changes. This thought was developed by Imam al Mawardi, Al Ghazali and other Muslim scholar. In my opinion, Malaysia and Indonesia are the best example for the practice of symbiotic mutualism between Islam and the State.
The other one is the separated relation of Islam and the State. This thought emphasizes the separation between Islam and the State. This notion was from the secular thought which stated that there should be an autonomous territory between religion and state. Both of them remain in the same system but do not interfere each other.
Since the beginning, Indonesia has chosen the relation between Islam and politics in the pattern of symbiotic mutualism. This preference based on the fact that most of Indonesian people are Muslims who follow Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah or Adherents to the Sunnah and the community (theologically follow Abu Hasan al-Ash’ari and al Maturidi, in terms of Islamic jurisprudence follow the four madhabs) and in mysticism follow the view of al-Ghazali. Indonesian Ulama can be described as moderate. In many respects they do not confirm religious formalism. Interestingly, this view is hand in hand with the view of Indonesian constitution.
Furthermore, seeing the Indonesian history, we can find several changes in forming the relation of Islam and politics. In the early days, there was a tendency to formulate this relation in symbiosis pattern. In the decade thereafter, there was a conflict of interest either to make Indonesia as Muslim country or secular one.
In general, from some arguments above, it is possible to find a connection between Islamism in the early independence and in the contemporary era. It means that what happens with the recent Islamist, directly or indirectly has a correlation with the trend of Islamic movement in the past.
It is a fact that the political contestation in Malaysia certainly is not as strong as in Indonesia. This is certainly due to the fact that politics in Malaysia is not as free as in Indonesia especially in articulating freedom in politics. In Indonesia, the result of the reformation era stimulates the freedom of speech and so forth, cause the emergent of various movements that indicate the growing demand for freedom. After the collapse of the authoritarian regimes, the New Order, the freedom has no limits.
In Malaysia, the opposition forces are eliminated. UMNO (The United Malays National Organisation ) as the government’s party has powerful power. Compare to the Indonesian New Order regime, which has been reformed, while UMNO position is the same with no change at all. The party can control the power of political opposition. Furthermore, the Islamic party, PAS (The Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party), does not have enough power to challenge the government.
Religious power is also subjugated by the government. For example on the sermon, the government restricts and controls strictly on the sermons content. By doing this, the government is able to control the topic of religious learning in the country.
That is why the dynamic of religious thought in Malaysia is not as flourish as in Indonesia. Last decade, Indonesia has produced liberal religious thought, for example in the work of the Liberal Islam Network (JIL) and also JIMM (Jaringan Intelektual Muda Muhammadiyah or Muhammadiyah Young Intellectual Network). Surely, this kind of thought would never emerge in Malaysia.
Through a tight control of various religious thoughts, the dynamics of Islamic thought in Malaysia will not grow rapidly. In addition, the government only supports the official orthodox Islamic thought. By doing this, it is politically advantageous for the government.
The absence of liberal movement in Malaysia makes the country sterilized from religious thought which emphasizes on the use of rational interpretation. However, one thing that we can learn is the high quality of education in Malaysia. Today many Malaysian students study in the Middle East countries for studying Islamic studies. In addition, the number of Malaysian students studying in the West has increased for time to time.
However, as a general thesis of the democrats; the more prosperous and the higher level of education, the more the demand on democratization. In my opinion, this hypothesis will eventually happen in Malaysia.
I remind that several years ago there was a thought for mapping Muslims minorities in Southeast Asian countries such as Thailand, Singapore and the Philippines. It is true that in these regions, the Muslim population is small. Some of them can be regarded as “less fortunate” especially in terms of their relation with the state. We can find that some of them are stamp as rebel.
If we explore the issue more deeply, then we can find unfortunate situation in the Philippines. Muslims are concentrated in the southern Philippines. Geographically, this region is poorer than other regions in North and Central Philippines. As an unwanted minority group, the government’s policy is certainly not up to them. Moreover, this group is considered as rebellion by the government.
Since the Ferdinand Marcos presidency, Muslim minority in the Philippine has a conflict with the government. Using The Moro Islamic Liberation Front, they fight the Philippine government. When the regime changed to Cory Aquino, they still keep fighting, until now.
By de facto, the relation between the Philippine government and the militant Muslims in southern Philippines is figured as antagonistic-conflictual. Surely, this condition happens because of radical movement of Muslim minority in the Philippine in reference to their relations with the state. For that reason, if this group continues to struggle to hold on their own concept vis a vis the state, the conflict will always continue.
In southern Thailand, perhaps the situation is far more compromistic. Muslim minorities who are mostly moderate Muslims have better relation to the state compare to what happen in the Philippines
Their attitudes can be regarded as the silent minority. This term refers to people or groups who are not opposing the government. They receive government policy through an expanded autonomy. Government policy does not yet touched on what they really want, for example, about religion and education. However, in general, they have become “part” of the parliamentary system.
Therefore, if it is mapped, the relation between Islam and the state in Thailand can be categorized as a reciprocal-critical. In this kind of relationship, the government and Muslims keep their distance and critiquing each other. However, as far as the government could provide security for the implementation of dakwah, education and fair development among regions in the country, then the critical attitude of the Muslim minority would not continue to be radical movement.
Thus, if the development is done by the government can be perceived by the Muslim minorities, and policy regarding religious does not violate interests of Muslim minorities, then there will be increasingly good prospects among them. Possibly, there will be a relation which leads to a symbiotic mutualism.
.