Indonesian Experiences of Building Communities
Sylvana Ranti-Apituley[1]

My response to Dr. Ninan Koshy is through the eyes of an Asian woman theologian who is involved in the difficult process of transforming Indonesia as an interfaith community. I will explain these efforts (especially from the perspectives and experiences of the interfaith community and women) in overcoming the problems. I will not comment on all that Dr. Koshy wrote, but freely choose some aspects that are related and relevant to our context. Though I may not cover all the issues, I would also like to spend some moments to share with you what I believe to be some of the important aspects of our struggle in doing theology and in building the Indonesian community.

According to Dr. Koshy there are at least five challenges or threats to community building in Asia today: transformation of the state; economic globalization; militaristic notions of national security; US as the emerging new empire that dominates hegemonically the rest of the world; and imperial military doctrines. I will try to discuss those five challenges in the context of Indonesia's experience.

Transformation of the State

Dr. Koshy sees that the process of state reconstruction today that proceeds via limitation of democratic politics, declining economic sovereignty and enlistment of state administrator in the service of global circuits is a new trend in the context of globalization. He said that these trends unravel a century-long process of construction of citizenship and its social and political entitlements in the formation of nation-states. Actually what happened in Indonesia is the opposite. At least two or three indications cited above have happened in Indonesia since the New Order regime was in power in 1967 (22 years after the formation of the nation-state). The weakening of Indonesia's economic independence started in the first years of the New Order regime and it got worse during the multidimensional conflict of 1997.[2] In the first years of the New Order regime, economic conditions were very bad,[3] that Indonesia was one of the poorest countries in the world with 2/3 of its citizens living in abject poverty. This condition pushed the government to negotiate with some rich countries like USA, the Netherlands, England and France. The foreign debt, first meant to cover development expenses (beside the export or trade surplus income), eventually became the main income source, which has kept Indonesia indebted until now.[4] The monetary crisis in 1997[5] led the government into asking for more long-term financial support from international foundations such as IMF and World Bank.[6]

The reputation of the New Order regime as an authoritarian government is well-known. Indonesia has just started its democratization process. As one crisis is followed by another, Indonesia has entered a critical time in its history � the transition to being democratic from being authoritarian. There are some significant signs of freedom � e.g. creation of new political parties (with new players) that receive good support from society; functional role of parliament as controller of government politics;[7] and civil society movement which could never be imagined in the past[8] has become an evenly spread movement in many places.[9]

Although the reality described above looks bright, As Dr. Koshy emphasized, the need to transform law and order state to a justice-oriented state also becomes very relevant and important. Lately, in Indonesia, we can feel the movement towards economic-political neo-conservatism, a seeming return of the era when the new Order Regime was in power.[10]

Globalization and Economy

There are various understandings of and responses to globalization. I would like to explain what I understand of globalization, and how we might respond to it based on our experiences in Indonesia. Many people think about globalization as a single reality, which is a given and unavoidable, and which, whether we like it or not, will just "eat" everyone up without mercy or chance for the victims to make a choice. But other people see globalization differently. They do not want to be trapped in a concept or world-culture structure, which is built by the power holder (global). Globalization does not mean uniformity or mere marginalization. As Maneke Budiman said, in agreeing with Kevin Robbins:

...the new world which is created by the globalization process (which was signed by the weakening of many structures and orientation known for a long time by us and also the existence of new possibilities causing disorientation) does not cause the emergence of uncertainty and doubts only, but experiences, hopes and new possibility. Globalization is not an evenly-spread process and also full of contradiction. Not everyone can take part in global consumerism. Some win and some are marginalized and the last ones will always 'disturb the globalization process'. Not everyone will give up on globalization and or become an 'anti-development'. Not everyone then becomes desperate and wants to stop the globalization (the economy and political injustice) by destroying the cultural or development symbols. [11]

There is still room for negotiation in the power contest field, where everyone does not give up their whole life formed by globalization. The action is not a mere resistance (against the system which is positioned already), but an effort to open articulation for self-subjectivity. And this is a conscious choice related to identity continuity; a balanced effort to take part in positioning self-identity.[12] In this global era, identity can not be seen as a single monolithic entity, or as Budiman said, as a space that can totally be subjectified not because it doesn't exist, but it is still in the process of reconstruction and redefinition. Identity can not be fixed. In this case, multi-identity is seen as an opportunity (not something confusing) which makes people flexible and able to go across the primordial identity limitations. This awareness is very important in a context of plurality like Indonesia, with its ethnic-religious conflicts. Agreeing with Walter Mignolo, Maneke Budiman said that globalization also gives opportunities to sub-altern groups in a 'state-nation' to build transnational alliance, which transcends national limitation in the effort to fight for their rights. Globalization indirectly helps the 'anti-development' groups to build a cross-limit nation-state identity by the usage of communication technology.[13]

We can say globalization is ambiguous. For Gerrit Singgih, there are some people who see globalization as the possibility to see critically other's views (about sex, groups, race, ideology, etc) and try to understand as well as realize the similarities and unity of people. Globalization is also related to building community with community being plural and heterogeneous.[14] Hence, globalization for us in Indonesia is not a mere economic-political injustice problem,[15] but also an opportunity for building community in a plural or heterogeneous society. It is important to realize the complexity of identity in view of narrow identity fanaticism and identity politics, which are realities in Indonesia. Thus, we can not just reject globalization as an economic or cultural-religious system; we can also accept it as 'contextualization'.[16] Our theological problems are not only economic-political injustice, but also (ethnic) religious plurality. As Singgih said, our mission is to "build" a system of economy which is diaconal and equal, which enables society to become a share-able community � not only between Christians but also with non-Christians.[17] Enabling more Christian base communities to exist in Indonesia is a suitable way for Church praxis with this new mission. These Basic Christian Communities will be an effective pedagogy to build a new, equal and plural community in Indonesia.

War on Terror, Imperial Security and People's Right[18]

Indonesian experiences, especially in the case of Aceh and other regions like Papua, confirm Dr. Koshy's thesis about the government's commitment to fight against terrorism, which has changed to militarisation, and about national security concept, which precisely violates human rights. The Indonesian government has been wrong in understanding Aceh's problems by responding to an economic-political injustice problem of the society through military action, which was practised by the new order government for years.

Practised openly by the government, militarization in Aceh is supported by the launching of the law against terrorism in 2002, thereby increasing the level of human rights violations committed by the military.[19] In Otto Syamsudin Ishak's analysis, the US decision to fight against terrorism after 11 September 2001 has influenced significantly the rise of militarism in Aceh. Through this, the government of Indonesia 'forces' society to accept military action in Aceh in a context of a narrow nationalism as well as a unilateral national security concept. The military action towards the GAM (Aceh Freedom Movement) looks like US chasing a terrorist in Iraq. War against GAM, which was planned in 1-2 months, did not only paralyze GAM but also made some 5000 Acehnese into refugees, thousands of students to leave schools, and a lot of dead victims among civilians. The war has become a daily "popular show" through the media.

For the government, war against terror and ensuring national security means the following: destruction of freedom of the press (media are not free in reporting facts; news has to be from the perspective of the government or military); oppressive action towards pro-democracy groups[20]; destruction of any political opposition (putting a "separatist" mark on those from the region asking for justice); intimidation and physical threat to human rights activists, civilians, etc. Military action in the name of security and nationalism is actually nothing but a horrible terror and an unbearable human rights violation.

The government's commitment to fight against the so-called terrorism has come to mean terrorizing people through bombings that have happened several times in various places.[21] The investigation and court proceedings of Amrozi, suspect of the Bali bombing in 2002, seemed to have been successful in uncovering the mystery, yet for many people the process is very slow and not so open. Just two days after Amrozi was convicted, another (car) bomb exploded at JW Marriot Hotel, in Jakarta, on 5 August 2003.

Agreeing with Dr. Koshy, I am sure that it is necessary to come up with an appropriate alternative paradigm about nationalism and national security, i.e. that the national security concept will be comprehensive, based more on human rights, gender justice, ecological justice and social solidarity. Furthermore, the concept needs to be measured through the presence of shalom for people, especially for those who are poor, weak, marginalised and oppressed.

For me, real 'war' against terrorism is that acted out by the interfaith community in Indonesia as a civil society movement when US invaded Iraq. For the first time in our contemporary history, various groups from society made several peaceful actions by organising peace rallies in order to protest against Iraq invasion. The peaceful actions involved the whole community, especially the religious community, including the so-called conservative, moderate and progressive-liberal Islamic and Christian groups. Similar solidarity was also shown to the Acehnese during the military operation period, and to the Balinese, especially the Bali bombing victims. Interfaith solidarity and cooperation show that religious communities are all against violence, whatever the form and the reason may be.

Fundamentalism and Religious Chauvinism

On this matter of fundamentalism and religious chauvinism, I will address one religious aspect and theological concept.

Rosemary Radford Ruether[22] seems to be right when she identifies the fundamentalist and religious chauvinism alive in America nowadays. Ruether describes the phenomenon like this: there is only one chosen nation, America (white people); only one righteous religion (the Christian protestant); one righteous denomination (protestant evangelical); one pure Christian (a reborn Christian); one righteous family (monogamous, heterosexual couple, with man as breadwinner and woman as housewife). The American government or leaders are God's chosen people who receive divine mandates and power to act on God's law and commandment, protecting those who live righteously and punishing those who do not live according to the law-commandment.

The combination of fundamentalism and capitalism which, seen from the feminist perspective, is very patriarchal, has bearing upon apocalyptic awareness which sounds chauvinistic and puts the global society in danger. In tackling the issue of fundamentalism, it is important to also point to the links between fundamentalism and sexism. These two issues are important as part of our theological agenda in building new communities that are egalitarian, mutually respecting of the other, just, and peaceful.

_______________________
Notes: