TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - The decision of the police to indict Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (Ahok) for blasphemy shows that the law in Indonesia has bowed to mob pressure. We are seeing our legal system being destabilized and our democracy come under threat. We cannot convincingly accept the decision that indicting Ahok is entirely based on legal considerations.
Ahok is suspected of insulting the Qur'an. His speech, at the Thousand Islands on September, during which he quoted from the Al-Maidah verse, triggered anger that eventually led to a massive demonstration on November 4. The police response to the protesters' demand that Ahok be jailed was to question the incumbent and several witnesses and examine video evidence. The result, although the decision was not unanimous, was that Ahok be indicted for the crime of blasphemy.
At first glance, this appears to be a normal legal procedure. There was a report, a suspected crime and the police acted. What is unusual is the impression that the police engineered the indictment to appease the angry mob.
The demonstration reported to be the largest since the one on May 1998 was alarming, just from the sheer number of protesters. They were mobilized by such factors as a religious ruling (fatwa) from the Indonesian Council of Ulamas (MUI) which stated that Ahok had committed blasphemy. This was exactly the same as the charges of Islamic organizations, such as the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI).
It is also difficult to accept the explanation that the protesters' only motive was Ahok's offensive remarks about their religion.
Speculation was that some of them wanted to prevent Ahok from running in the Jakarta governor's election, or even to bring down President Jokowi himself. Others, according to the National Police, wanted to replace the Pancasila state philosophy with one of the caliphate.
Indicting Ahok was therefore aimed at separating the offended protesters from those who had other ulterior motives. Now that Ahok is a suspect, hopefully, the people who believed their religion had been blasphemed, will not take to the streets again. If a large demonstration will still be held and there are rumors this will happen on November 25 or December 2 those taking part can be classified as a gathering of political activists.
If we accept this analysis, the legal situation is truly worrying, if not dangerous. The law has been turned into part of political negotiations. This will set a bad precedent. Police decisions, and even court rulings, can be determined by how many people take to the streets. In this digital era, the size of a crowd can be measured by the numbers of 'likes' in social media. If Ahok becomes a victim today, who will be next? Common sense must prevail. Mobocracy must be stopped.
Instead of organizing a counter-demonstration, Ahok should fight back through a pre-trial motion. He could use this to challenge his indictment in the open. Organizing a counter-demonstration, besides leading towards new tensions, would give the impression of trying to fight a mob with another mob. This 'war' would not be good, and would justify the narrow-minded opinion that Ahok is benefiting politically from this dispute. Admittedly, in the midst of his declining electability, the plurality issue becomes an effective campaign tool.
We hope the police, the prosecutors and the judges will act professionally. The investigation into the Ahok case must be transparent. The trial must be honest and open. And all sides must graciously accept the final ruling, no matter what. The long trial process must not adversely affect Ahok's rights as a candidate. The law states that until the final verdict is announced, Ahok is free to contest in the election.
The Ahok case seriously tests our maturity as a nation. The Constitution guarantees every person, of whatever religion, race, ethnicity or descent, has the same rights. Opposing Ahok because he is Chinese and non-Muslim, will only make Indonesia less civilized.
Opposing Ahok as governor can easily be done by not voting for him on polling day. Let the voters of Jakarta decide if he is the right person or not to lead the capital. This is far more dignified than using religious or racial issues to make him lose.
This is a test for us to maintain both our system of governance and to preserve the basis of our law and democracy, namely that our nation was not established to oppress minorities. Every person in this republic has the same rights and opportunities. If we fail this test, it will mean we have failed to safeguard the Constitution. (*)
Read the full story in this week's edition of Tempo English Magazine
