-------------------------------interpreting our constitution.---------------------
Posted on March 4, 2011 by benlaksana
It is either deep confusion or lack of bravery (which then seems to manifest into idiocy) that our government is brilliant at when it comes to finding a viable and enduring solution towards the on going case of Ahmadiyah. One example of such idiocy is an opinion tragically & thoughtlessly uttered by a member of Commission VIII of the People’s Representative Council (DPR), HM Busro (Ahmadis should live on isolated island: Legislator – The Jakarta Post, 02/17/2011) .
He simply proposed to move the Ahmadis to one of our 17.000 inhabited islands, away from modern civilization, away from any form of adequate infrastructure and perhaps away from any form of contact with any other human being other than the Ahmadis themselves. It is as if the Ahmadis are dangerous, wild, brainless animals that must be secluded from the rest of our society in order to fulfill the notion of “for the good of our society.”
This foolish, inhumane idea if indeed becomes a reality is nothing but a sick interpretation by a member of our government on how to preserve our fragile domestic national security whilst trying to fulfill our constitution, it is but a foolish attempt towards trying to balance the two.
Easily put, he is saying, “oh yes let us acknowledge and uphold religious freedom/pluralism by placing the minority in a secluded island far from society”, such absurdity.
This idea and other already materialized laws such as the joint decree of the three ministers, have shown us two probabilities. One, is the immense fear within our government towards taking the necessary steps in fully implementing our constitution or two, our government basically does not have a strong stance on what our constitution should imply. I on the other hand, personally see it at as a mixture of both.
Our government is witless to actually define a clear interpretation of our constitution, which in fact it urgently needs to formulate a clear policy in tackling critical social issues such as religious disputes. A clear policy that reflects our government’s main stance in solving these sort of critical matters.
Basically what I am questioning here is simple, is our government secular or does it base it’s policy making towards a certain religion?
It certainly cannot be both for our governments attempt to finding a balance between the two has resulted in confusions in constructing the much needed policies. Policies which needs a clear definition of our constitution on which the policies are literally based on.
Without first answering and realizing this crucial question our government will constantly fashion policies that has a muddled fundamental basis to it. Resulting in policies that has only raised more questions than answers.
Laws ranging from the infamous blasphemy law to the joint decree of the three ministers are prime examples of this recklessness. With these laws the government is now able to penetrate the personal lives of its citizens thereby to a major extent controlling on what we should or should not believe in. They are slowly without doubt steering our perception on major personal issues, issues such as the case of Ahmadiyah. It is but a discreet form of brainwashing if I may add.
With the blessings from our government in the form letting the Ahmadis suffer for the past recent years, our society will then gradually follow this act of negligence.
And since blasphemy seems to be such a crucial issue amongst many Indonesians due to religion having a major role in our society’s identity, wide spread discomfort may form and when there is discomfort, conflict may arise much easily. This is all due not solely because of the incorrect interpretation of our laws such as the joint decree of the three ministers but it goes much deeper which is because of out government not having a single strong stance towards this critical case. Which again it is because they do not have a clear interpretation of our constitution.
Churning policies only to satisfy the wants of the people but not their needs will only be a temporal solution of the issue at hand. We need a long term solution towards this case and it can only construct a long term solution once it has strong basis for that solution.
Our society may become the most religiously diverse society and even become the most religious and spiritual society the world has ever seen but our government must never have a religion. It needs secularity to maintain it’s neutrality and this is what we do not have.
Our current government has meddled too much in our personal lives. It is far from being neutral. How far actually is our government’s authority in defining a certain belief as blasphemy? Is it not clearly stated in our constitution that we as Indonesians have the freedom and rights to choose on what ever we choose to believe in? If we are only allowed to express something that does not offend, then where is the freedom? What is left for freedom in Indonesia is limited to the fear that we are afraid to offend an individual or a collective of individuals.
Blasphemy is only to be decided not by the government but amongst the conflicting parties themselves. State neutrality must be upheld, our government’s role must be neutral meaning that it must protect and ensure the safety of both conflicting parties and without a hint of doubt punish those who uses violence to instill their beliefs. Furthermore, as long as Ahmadiyah does not preach of hatred, our government should not limit its movement. Indonesia is not Pakistan that due to its constitution can define on what Ahmadiyah is.
Sadly in the end, the solution for Ahmadiyah comes down to on how our government interprets our constitution. A constitution which to my known knowledge has shown a high appreciation for religious pluralism. Rather opposite seeing the recent events don’t you think?
zo 6 maa 2011 - 7:39