November 4 Rally: Discreet Effects of Apparent Practices  

TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - November 4, 2016, has been marked by many hard-line Islamic Organizations to be the date of mass protest against the running governor candidate Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (Ahok). Led by the Islamic Defenders Front (Front Pembela Islam / FPI) it is expected that around 500,000 people will participate from various Islamic Organizations to protest in front of the Presidential Palace for the prosecution of Ahok under charges of conducting religious blasphemy. This is the second mass protest that is held against Ahok that in regards to his statement on Surat Al Maidah on October 27, 2016.

Many politicians struggled to respond to this phenomena. In the first protest on October 14, 2016, neither the president nor the vice-president responded to calm the situation. Other national politicians did not seem too keen either in engaging on the subject. At best, leading up to the November 4, 2016, President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo gave a vague attempt to calm it down; though urging an atmosphere of calm and peace, he stated that demonstration is a right all society should be able to practice.

The permissiveness of politicians is understandable; the phenomena lies at an odd crossroad between the overtly lawful use of democratic structures and the covertly harmful narratives supported by notoriously violent Islamic groups. The FPI and those who joins its cause vehemently argue that the demonstration is a peaceful and lawful practice of constitutional jihad; simply a protest demanding of Ahok’s prosecution without any political and non-Islam sentiment mobilization. Despite its seemingly lawful and peaceful rhetoric, there are 3 reasons why we should be concerned for the contrary.

First, is the possible mob-legitimacy affect this demonstration can have on non-muslim sentiments. The Islamic Organizations that will participate in the demonstrations (i.e. National Support Movement for MUI's Fatwa / Gerakan Nasional Pembela Fatwa MUI), have been strong supporters of MUI's ruling on Ahok’s statement. The ruling states, aside from the fact that Ahok's statement on Al Maidah is considered blasphemous, that Islamic verses explicitly forbids non-muslim leaders and that ulema's and muslims need to adhere to its guidance. The FPI have also been actively facilitating and advocating for Muslim Governor Conventions that aims to search for a Muslim Governor that specifically is aimed to "go head-to-head with Ahok" since February. All these organizations and members have overall intentions that calls for non-muslim sentiments regardless of their unlawful conduct. Thus this demonstration can give a mob-legitimacy effect that can further sediment, not only to the apparent desire to prosecute Ahok, but also to the discreet non-muslim sentiments within the group.

Secondly, one need to contrast the protest’s claim of being apolitical with the preparation its leaders conduct. For an apolitical movement, the leaders of the protest have been overtly political; they have advocated for members of the parliaments to participate in the protest, and even met with Fadli Zon, the Vice Head of the Parliament, for support — which he gave along with another Vice Head, Fahri Hamzah. Aside from active politicians, FPI has also obtained support from Rachmawati Soekarnoputri, a politically influential daughter of Soekarno, when she "aligned [her] mission and vision [with FPI] … in regards to the November 4, 2016." Note, that these politicians are influential members of Gerindra and  the Social Justice Party (Partai Keadilan Sejahtera — PKS), parties that support the Jakarta governor candidate Anies Baswedan - Sandiaga Uno, the candidate running second behind Ahok in current polls. But moreover, it needs to be remembered that demonstration in itself is an attempt to make the issue political, for only political apparatuses are affected by societal pressures such as demonstrations. If it were to merely be a lawful concern, filing the case to court would be sufficient. All these actions contrary to the rhetoric, entails political outcomes; giving incentives for political parties to support their cause and, with it, structurally legitimize the latent non-muslim sentiment that they covertly carry.

Lastly, although these protesters have claimed that the demonstration will be peaceful, it is hard to believe seeing the precedents of the members’ and supporters’ conduct in past demonstrations. The FPI, for one, is notorious for its use of violence. But specifically in regards to this issue, FPI has been famously recorded for advocating violence and even issuing death sentences to Ahok in on his allegedly blasphemous act. What is more concerning though, is the fact that the planned protest provides an opening for violent extremists. On 29th October, non-Indonesian and fully armed members of Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (also known as the al-Nusra Front) spread photographs on social media stating "Sentence Ahok or We Will Sentence Him with Bullets". Although we should not blanket everyone with the stereotype of being violent, seeing the existing narratives that were able to permeate within the group, and tendencies of violence of the groups, it is important to be cautious of what is to come; and to some, the threat of violence is equal to the act of violence itself, instilling fear and harming the right of security for many.

What we need to do is clear; we should not allow this demonstration and the narrative it carries to ferment anti-religious sentiment within our democratic structures. Politicians should not blatantly or even vaguely support the protest without attempting to address and denounce the latent politically divisive narrative that the protest carries. Civil Society Organizations should overtly start advocating counter-narratives to the protest’s latent effect; the importance of merit and religious unity. Constituents should check their own personal biases and call out on these latent divisive narrative within their immediate circles. For democracy entails us to not only practice its structures, but also protect its values; even when the threat to them is not overt and is hidden within democratic practices; especially when it’s at the expense of people’s sense of security.

By: Alif Satria