Using Religious Symbols Will Hamper People Trust

The current presidential race actually much interesting compared to the 2004 election. The General Election Commission (KPU) is more creative by organizing 5 rounds of presidential/vice presidential televised debates, the event that gives the candidates chance to act their best performances in front of public. Like the Indonesian Idol – a singing contest among the teenagers across the country whom the winner is picked by the voters through sms (short message service), the presidential/vice presidential candidates polish their images for the best endeavor in order to be voted by the audiences.

Unfortunately, the attractive race nowadays has been tainted by several sentiments using religious symbols which supposedly out from practical politics.

Firstly, after all three candidates announced their readiness for the race, the deputy secretary general of the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) Zulkieflimansyah said that popularity of JK-Wiranto duet has been increasing due to their wives wearing the jilbab (headscarf). The mass media then cover both Jusuf Kalla and Wiranto wives who always appear in public wearing a jilbab. Internal survey by PKS confirmed that such attire potentially lures the Muslims to vote for them.

Perhaps JK and Wiranto have no intention to use such strategy to gain popularity, because there is nothing wrong with wearing a jilbab for Muslims despite the jilbab indeed is visually very attractive for conventional Muslim women. However, it has been making biased when it’s used as a campaign theme suggested the candidates whose the wives wearing jilbab are definitely better than those who are not – referring to the SBY-Boediono and Megawati-Prabowo pairs.

Secondly, at a recent Golkar campaign in Medan, there was a rumors spread by unidentified source that Boediono’s wife is a Catholic. The garbage rumors were clear used by those who intended to tell public that it’s no way to have leader with the non Muslim background. I don’t know what the smear campaign based on, but Boediono’s wife is a truly Muslim. Boediono himself asked his supporters not to react anything on this matter.

Is there no other way to win the race respectfully than using religious symbols as a campaign strategy? Why such thing always re-occurring in every election? We should remember in 2004 the similar rumors also occurred to SBY when his wife accused as a Christian just because her name is Kristiani Herawati – the sound which tends to Christianity nuance in her first name.

Such campaign strategies definitely are a set back and contra-productive if applied in our multi-cultures society. Such strategies are not sellable anymore. And I am personally not sure it is effective to influence the voters to switch their preferred candidates, because people today are more mature and not so easy to be driven only by religious symbols. The political elites who still have a narrow mind should wake-up and open eyes widely that our people today are not stupid. They should stop politicizing religion because Indonesia is a pluralistic state.

In the first vice presidential debate that moderated by Komaruddin Hidayat on 23 June, the three VP candidates agreed to put religion out of politics, even on the higher position than politics considering it is a sacral entity for all human being. However, as Boediono remarked that words so often to be different with deeds, which candidates will the people put the trust on?

S.K. Zainuddin in the July edition of GLOBEAsia magazine wrote: “After all the campaign stops and televised debates, after political and economic analysts have dissected the platforms of the respective candidates, it all boils down to one factor. Trust.”

It is not without a strong reason if the key factor for all the candidates to win the race is merely a trust. And the trust itself born from honesty and sincerity, because it will be so naïve if the people lay their trust just on religious symbols. “The defining factor that will differentiate the winner from the losers will be how voters perceive the candidates not in terms of substance of their platforms but in the way they govern,” said Zainuddin.

Probably the debates for most of the people is just a show. It is enjoyable watching the excited, attractive, and argumentative debates, and how the candidates speaking articulately in describing the own view or debating the rivals view. Then the questions are: Does the candidate who steals the attention of the audience in the debates also succeed stealing the people trust? Does the candidate who gains plenty of claps from the audience also succeed gaining the people confidence to be the next five years leaders?

***
Serpong, 30 June 2009

Titus J.

It Was Not The Real Debate!

(published in The Jakarta Post on 23 June 2009. Click here)

The rare show is now coming to our home. Let's finish our work earlier and come home soon, sit down in front of the TV and enjoy it as within two coming weeks we will be entertained by a much-awaited show ahead of the presidential election that is scheduled on July 8.

The show, titled "Presidential debate" is considered as a historic event for Indonesia since it will present all of the presidential/vice presidential candidates by face to face, and aired by several TV stations as a live event.

People, regardless of their status and profession, enthusiastically watched the first debate on June 18 that presented Megawati Soekarnoputri, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Jusuf Kalla.

Although the event is quite interesting, we didn't see the real debate as expected since the three candidates tended to be bold and underline the rival's view, no challenges toward the description that was presented by each. The nuance was so different with the "war of claims" or "war of criticism" during their campaign or as shown in their advertisements in mass media.

People actually expected it would become a hot debate particularly between the incumbent SBY and the challenger Mega because public knew the two candidates always attack each other since SBY in reign till today. But if the debate was expected to face-off between the incumbent versus the challenger, where should JK stand?

I think the General Election Commission (KPU) who determined such format of the debate intended to avoid open clashes among the candidates in front of public. The debate will likely only try to capture the "high level" views from the three candidates upon the selected issues, thus, we saw the explanation presented by them only touch on the normative level. For me, it will be much better and exciting to watch if the moderator put the real hot topics on the table then dug deeply for each candidate's thoughts over the topics.

For example, when raising the past human rights violation issue, the moderator could directly offer the Munir case: How the law and justice goes so far, why there is so many awkwardness in the law processing, why the mastermind is not captured yet and how to solve it. When raised about protection of the TKW (women migrant workers), the moderator could take Nirmala Bonat or Siti Hajar as examples of TKW who were tortured by their employer as the real case occurred recently.

The next debates hopefully would raise other topics that I believe will very much attract public attention such as the neoliberalism issue: Why has Boediono accused by his rivals of being a neoliberal figure? The moderator could directly ask Budiono's rivals what the accusation based on, and then give Boediono a chance to respond. The BLT (direct cash aid) that picked by Mega as a bullet to shoot SBY also the real attractive issue.

By watching the debates over the hot-real topics, public would know whether the candidates really understand a bunch of the problems of our country and how to solve it. People want to see the leaders who are able to simplify the complicated problems by a simple description, not just by a jargon nor by a monologue campaign that attacks the rivals while the rivals cannot give a direct answer on that.

Finally, the candidates should realize that winning the debates will not automatically win the hearts of people. But still, the debates show is a very good tool for people to learn politics and democracy in which the spirit of sportiveness abides.

***
Serpong, 21 June 2009

Titus J.

Will Peace be Keen to Come?

(published in The Jakarta Post on 11 June 2009. Click here)

Peace. This is the only word brought by President Barack Obama in his tour of the Middle East recently. As we already know, the word "peace" for the Middle East is easy to say but the hardest thing to grab. And always, the word "peace" would have got a skeptical reaction across the world, not because people hate the word, but it is the President of United States who said "peace" and brings it to their land.

People in the war zone of the Middle East (particularly relative to the Israel-Palestine conflict) seem not-so-anxious to have peace, because when it comes, it suddenly takes wing and flies somewhere else. All the peace accords have been so fragile and easily broken by the fighting parties, though their leaders are smiling, shaking hands and kissing cheeks with each other at the same table when talking about peace. But still, it has been the word people dare to dream of.

What did Obama try to do when he realized that the peace in Middle East was in tatters and had completely shattered? Did we see him come with a sincere heart? We can see that at least he has the goodwill to end the hostility this time. Maybe not only goodwill, there is a fire that burns in his spirit to make peace a reality.

Bring peace, extend your hand or salute, then you will conquer the heart of your enemy. That is advice from the wise. Thus, it was so meaningful for the Muslims when Obama humbly conveyed a greeting of "Assalamualaikum".
His telling of his experiences with his Muslim father and Kenyan family and his experience of spending four years of his childhood in Indonesia was a most powerful strategy to touch those who hate America.

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said: "Any statements by Obama were just words, speeches and slogans without any specific measures by Washington such as lifting sanctions on Iran." Meanwhile in Iraq, Sheik Ahmed Hassan Taha told worshippers in Baghdad that Obama cannot be trusted and accused him of abandoning his father's Muslim faith.

It is clear, bringing peace to the land that has been torn so long by war is not just a one-day effort nor possible with just one speech. There is so much fear, wounds, distrust and hostility, but Obama said: "If we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward."

Obama tried to show that the new foreign policy under his administration is definitely different than before. His attempt to embrace the Muslim world was seen when he sent Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to Indonesia as the first destination of her tour in Asia. It cannot be denied that the Israel-Palestine conflict will always drag the international community into it, including Indonesia, as the country with the largest Muslim population in the world.

As the Muslim world always accuses the United States of double standards and the main backer of Israel, Obama said that he did not deny the Palestinian people, Muslims and Christians, who have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.
"America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own," he said, but then he admitted the strong bonds between America and Israel are unbreakable because of cultural and historical ties.

Obama has bravely come and knocked on the door. He asks to forget the past and promote his dream that all nations would be able to live in harmony. In the closing statement of his speech, he quoted from the Holy Koran: "O mankind! We have created you male and female, and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know each other." He then quoted from the Holy Bible: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

Will peace be keen to come and dwell in the holy land today or tomorrow, or fly off somewhere else as previously?

***

Serpong, 9 Jun 2009
Titus J.

related story: Let's Pray for Peace in Gaza