Principled Pluralism and the Prevention of Religious Terrorism in Indonesia
Herman Selderhuis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article claims to explore an intriguing and timely topic, namely how a soft-power approach of Indonesia’s pluralism as depicted in the Pancasila, the ‘five principles of the Indonesian nation, can prevent terrorism. It is analyzed how this pluralism can be interpreted through neo-Calvinist thinking, especially “Kuyperian pluralism”, and how this approach can help to counteract religious indoctrination that might lead to terrorism. The argument is intriguing, but I suggest some revisions before the draft can be accepted for publication. In my opinion, there are two major issues in my opinion: first, the characterization of secular countries as anti-religious is too simple, and, - more important - the article does not explain how terrorism is actually prevented with this interpretation of Pancasila.
Overall, I think that the description of secularism in the West (I assume the author means liberal Western countries when referring to secular countries) is a bit misleading as it depicts secularism entirely at odds with religious value in the public sphere. For instance, on p. 5: “In this way, a solution to the problem of religious terrorism could be found in the secular state, in which no one is permitted to bring his/her religious values to the public sphere.“ This might be a misreading of Rawls (and secularism in general). In Western secular countries is not permitted to bring religious values to the public, and the existence of religious parties and religious-inspired politics in the West gives proof to it. At least in Western liberal democracies, one is usually allowed to express his or her religious values in the public sphere, but the secular principle forbids it to make particular religious values obligatory for everybody and the state does not get it's legitimating from religious principles. That means that the assumption that the secular state “prevents religion from rendering its positive contributions“(p.6) is a bit problematic. In Europe, for instance, Christian-conservative parties (not to mention neo-conservative right-wing parties which often draw on Christian identity) are common, and in the US politics references and religiously-inspired politics are common. Jürgen Habermas (2005), for instance, has written in “Religion and the Public Sphere” about the question of how religion can contribute to politics in liberal/secular states. In regard to Indonesia, Luthfi Assyaukanie (2009) has written about secularism and how secular principles can relate to a religious society. In short, I think that the article is painting the liberal-secular state and the religious state too much black-and-white. One should not confuse secularism with anti-religiosity.
The main problem as I see it with the article is the following: The idea to explore Pancasila (or, at least, the first principle) from a Kuyperan, neo-Calvinist perspective is interesting, but it would add more to the discussion if the author could explain what this would mean for current debates in Indonesia and the way Pancasila is applied, for examples in controversies over the blasphemy law (Article 156 of the Indonesian Criminal Code), marriage law (which makes Muslim-non-Muslim marriages virtually impossible) or the question of ‘deviant‘ groups such as Ahmadiyah and Shia and their rights. While the article starts with the problem of terrorism, it does not come back to it when discussing the relation between neo-Calvinist pluralism and Pancasila. One would expect that before the conclusion there is a synthesis of what the neo-Calvinist interpretation of Pancasila means for anti-terror approaches. How can such an interpretation be applied? Which problems and objections probably occur for religious forces? I suggest adding an analysis of how the interpretation of Pancasila through the lenses of neo-Calvinist pluralism (it is an interpretation, others, such as the FPI, for instance, argue that the first principle supports the obligation of Sharia law for Muslim citizens, which would be a completely different interpretation) can help to actually prevent terrorism. Or, the author could use their Pancasila interpretation to deal with other current topics I suggested above. A good source would be, for instance, the edited volume „Religion, Law, and Intolerance in Indonesia (Lindsey & Pausacker 2016). By showing how the developed neo-Calvinist reading of Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa relates to these issues, the article could make some interesting and important contributions to the scholarly debates.
Some smaller issues:
- On p. 5 the author writes: This Law (the French law against separatism) aims to coerce each person to keep his/her religion in his/her private sphere and to adhere only to secular values when he/she is in the public sphere. With this law, the government exerts the right to close a place of worship or a religious organization whenever it criticizes French secular values.“ This statement needs references; the paragraphs in question should be quoted briefly. I am not an expert on that issue myself, but I think that in the polarizing debate concerning that law some vague ideas are more widespread than knowledge about the actual content of the law, so direct quotes would be useful if the author wishes to use it as an example of secularism.
- The hard power approach (Law no. 15/2003) is mentioned briefly, but it would be useful to know a bit more about the law and Densus as the author contrasts it with the soft power approach.
-Indonesian names like Badan Penyelidik Usaha Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia should be translated into English. Also, some background-Information for instance about the Pancasila might be useful for readers who are not familiar with the context of Indonesia but might read the paper because of their interest in neo-Calvinism.
-p. 10: “According to Sukarno, the first president of Indonesia, such public roles of religion must be limited "in a civilized way" (Sukarno 1964: 33). In other words, Pancasila places religion on the level of civil society—a domain in which the state has no right to interfere.“ “Civilized” does not necessarily mean “civil society” here. Probably Sukarno used the word “beradab” here which means “polite, ethical, cultured“, and does not refer to a public sphere outside the state apparatus. However, there are utterances of Sukarno declaring that Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa does not mean that people have to believe in God, indicating that the state should restrain from interfering in personal beliefs.
-p. 10: When the author writes that “Civil society is the only channel for religion to
make important contributions to Indonesian society“, does that mean that there should be a separation between religion and state in state institutions? That would be interesting as it goes against the mainstream interpretation of Pancasila. What would that mean for religious parties such as instance the PKS or institutions such as the Ministry of Religious Affairs?
Author Response
|
Reviewer’s comments |
Author’s comments and Author's argument |
|
Overall, I think that the description of secularism in the West (I assume the author means liberal Western countries when referring to secular countries) is a bit misleading as it depicts secularism entirely at odds with religious value in the public sphere. In short, I think that the article is painting the liberal-secular state and the religious state too much black-and-white. One should not confuse secularism with anti-religiosity. The characterization of secular countries as anti-religious is too simple |
Although there are variations of secularism in secular states, as well as variations of how the state views religion, in this article I use the terms “secular state” and “secularism” to refer to the one inherited from the French Revolution. Prior to the revolution, religion (church) and state in France were closely related, but after the revolution the state dispelled religion from the public sphere. We can call this kind of secularism a radical secularism or secular intolerance or what Jonathan Fox calls “laicism,” which has to be distinguished from “neutralism.” The difference between laicism and neutralism is already discussed in the article.
What Abraham Kuyper, the founder of Neo-Calvinism, contends is radical secularism. This contention does not imply that Kuyper wants a theocracy; his view is closer to neutralism. Kuyper’s attitude toward the relation between religion and state is apparent from his slogan, “parity, not privelege” (Chaplin 2013).
|
|
One would expect that before the conclusion there is a synthesis of what the neo-Calvinist interpretation of Pancasila means for anti-terror approaches. How can such an interpretation be applied? Which problems and objections probably occur for religious forces? I suggest adding an analysis of how the interpretation of Pancasila through the lenses of neo-Calvinist pluralism (it is an interpretation, others, such as the FPI, for instance, argue that the first principle supports the obligation of Sharia law for Muslim citizens, which would be a completely different interpretation) can help to actually prevent terrorism. Or, the author could use their Pancasila interpretation to deal with other current topics I suggested above. A good source would be, for instance, the edited volume „Religion, Law, and Intolerance in Indonesia (Lindsey & Pausacker 2016). By showing how the developed neo-Calvinist reading of Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa relates to these issues, the article could make some interesting and important contributions to the scholarly debates. The article does not explain how terrorism is actually prevented with this interpretation of Pancasila. |
In this article we refer to Nilay Saiya’s theory. Saiya has shown that acts of terror conducted in the name of religion indicate the occurrence of an elevation of religion and this phenomenon has caused unrest in certain states. Some states have reacted by increasing pressures and limitations on religion. Yet from his research Saiya found out that governments’ pressures on religion have failed to halt religious terrorism; conversely, religious terrorism has grown rapidly in states where religion is repressed. Whenever religious terrorism is countered only with force or violence it will result in strife, since religion is an essential part of human life. The constraints on religion have even led to the birth of hardline groups as they fell that their religious needs are being curbed. This is the weakness of the hard power approach. Saiya suggests a different approach—an approach that provides religious freedom. We use Saiya’s suggestion of providing religious freedom as the basis for a soft power approach, in which no force is being used. We have shown in our article that viewing Pancasila from the perspective of structural pluralism and confessional pluralism could provide religious freedom in a broad sense, in order that the number of hardline groups could be reduced. We have also discussed that interpreting Pancasila from the perspective of neo-Calvinism could provide another way for preventing the spread of religious terrorism.
|
|
This Law (the French law against separatism) aims to coerce each person to keep his/her religion in his/her private sphere and to adhere only to secular values when he/she is in the public sphere. With this law, the government exerts the right to close a place of worship or a religious organization whenever it criticizes French secular values.“ This statement needs references; the paragraphs in question should be quoted briefly. I am not an expert on that issue myself, but I think that in the polarizing debate concerning that law some vague ideas are more widespread than knowledge about the actual content of the law, so direct quotes would be useful if the author wishes to use it as an example of secularism. |
We have incorporated the reference suggested. We have also added one reference from Donadio. |
|
More information about the law and Densus 88 has been provided.
|
|
|
Indonesian names like Badan Penyelidik Usaha Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia should be translated into English. Also, some background-Information for instance about the Pancasila might be useful for readers who are not familiar with the context of Indonesia but might read the paper because of their interest in neo-Calvinism.
|
· Translation provided · Background-information about Pancasila provided |
|
-p. 10: “According to Sukarno, the first president of Indonesia, such public roles of religion must be limited "in a civilized way" (Sukarno 1964: 33). In other words, Pancasila places religion on the level of civil society—a domain in which the state has no right to interfere.“ “Civilized” does not necessarily mean “civil society” here. Probably Sukarno used the word “beradab” here which means “polite, ethical, cultured“, and does not refer to a public sphere outside the state apparatus. However, there are utterances of Sukarno declaring that Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa does not mean that people have to believe in God, indicating that the state should restrain from interfering in personal beliefs. -p. 10: When the author writes that “Civil society is the only channel for religion to
|
1. What we mean is this: Pancasila does not restrict religion to the private sphere as does radical secularism, but gives freedom to religion to fully express itself and to contribute to the public sphere. However, its contribution should be rendered at the level of civil society. Civil society is a public sphere that is free from interference by the state to the extent that the state is forbidden to favor one particular religion. As part of civil society, religion must adhere to a civilized attitude when rendering its contributions as well as its ideas for the common well-being of society; this adherence includes occasions when religion encounters differences of opinion.
2. As long as a certain religion contributes ideas that benefit all members of civil society, it could rightfully channel its aspirations through a political party. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- line 106 mentions 'authors' is this a misspelling or are there more authors?
- the author needs to give a somewhat more extensive argument for bringing in the thought of Abraham Kuyper but the connexion between Kuyper and Indonesia is fascinating
- the introduction suggests that the soft approach should come instead of the hard one whereas the article speaks about 'soft' in addition to 'hard'
- the statement in line 291 that religious freedom is the solution to religious terrorism is rather massive and open for debate. The author might consider a more careful definition such as : religious freedom will contribute considerable to solving religious terrorism
Author Response
|
Reviewer’s comments |
Author’s comments and Author's argument |
|
line 106 mentions 'authors' is this a misspelling or are there more authors? |
This article was written by two authors. |
|
the author needs to give a somewhat more extensive argument for bringing in the thought of Abraham Kuyper but the connexion between Kuyper and Indonesia is fascinating |
The authors have already done this. |
|
the introduction suggests that the soft approach should come instead of the hard one whereas the article speaks about 'soft' in addition to 'hard' |
In the Introduction we have emphasized that the soft power approach is not an alternative, but rather a complement, to the hard power approach. “Therefore, the hard power approach needs to be complemented by a soft power approach in order to combat religious terrorism effectively.” (L.102-104)
|
|
the statement in line 291 that religious freedom is the solution to religious terrorism is rather massive and open for debate. The author might consider a more careful definition such as: religious freedom will contribute considerable to solving religious terrorism |
The reviewer has suggested a better definition since religious terrorism is not always caused by a restriction on religious freedom; besides, the context of the problem discussed in this article is the restriction on religious freedom by the government and not by the majority religion towards a minority religion.
|
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has improved a bit. However, I am still not entirely convinced by the argument as my two major objects had not really been addressed in the revised version.
The author mentions the French law was a case in point but still does not engage with the law itself to show how it restricts religious freedom in a secular state. Also, there is confusion now between secularism, radical secularism, and laicism. These terms do not mean the same and the relationship could be developed a bit. Sure, these terms relate to each other, but then, why not argue that laicism is the problem? Or maybe is not a problem, maybe it is just not applicable to the case of Indonesia with its history and religious society? I think that the author is sometimes essentializing a bit when saying that religion is always important for human beings and thus for every society. In the case of Indonesia, the importance of religion is clear, but in the case of France or other countries, it might be different. Therefore I still suggest rewriting the section about secularity and focusing more on why a specific mode of secularism (which might be called laicism) is not suitable for the case of Indonesia. Then, he/she could elaborate on why Pancasila is important but also explains the pitfalls of Pancasila interpretation which makes the suggested neo-Calvinist interpretation interesting.
The author writes that “We have shown in our article that viewing Pancasila from the perspective of structural pluralism and confessional pluralism could provide religious freedom in a broad sense, in order that the number of hardline groups could be reduced.“ However, in my view, the new draft still lacks empirical arguments here. Has Pancasila been interpreted in another way so far so that hardliner groups could thrive? How exactly could their number be reduced? I think that for such an argument, one must further engage with the ideology of hardliner groups and show how the pluralism of Pancasila can counteract them. To provoke here a bit: why should Moslem hardline groups care for a pluralist neo-Calvinist interpretation of Pancasila? They probably don’t care much, but maybe the author could explain how such a reading of Pancasila could appeal to ordinary people in Indonesia. Or, there is still my second suggestion from my previous review: instead of engaging with terrorism, the author might apply the suggested interpretation of Pancasila to other, more common issues of religious life in Indonesia, for instance, issue of interreligious marriages or religious minorities’ rights.
These are my two objections. However, it might be the case that I am a bit biased here as I grew up in a secular country and see the involvement of religion in political affairs often critically. Of course, I leave it to the editors to decide if my objections are valuable here or if the draft is OK as it is for publication.
Author Response
|
The following comments have been made on the Manuscript “…” in accordance with reviewers’ comments |
|
|
Reviewer’s comments |
Author's argument |
|
In the case of Indonesia, the importance of religion is clear, but in the case of France or other countries, it might be different. Therefore I still suggest rewriting the section about secularity and focusing more on why a specific mode of secularism (which might be called laicism) is not suitable for the case of Indonesia. Then, he/she could elaborate on why Pancasila is important but also explains the pitfalls of Pancasila interpretation which makes the suggested neo-Calvinist interpretation interesting. |
There are indeed different versions of secularism, but the kind of secularism criticized in this article is the one applied in France and known as radical secularism or laicism. How Pancasila originated could not be separated from the apprehension that the Muslim group had toward radical secularism. They did not want a state that removed Islam from the life of the state. On the other hand, within the nationalist group there were individuals who were religious but whose fear of a Muslim state had driven them to opt for a secular state. It was this tension that Soekarno tried to solve by suggesting Pancasila. Viewed sociologically and historically, many different religions had existed among Indonesian diverse ethnic groups long before the state of Indonesia came to be. Therefore it would be impossible for the Indonesian state to remove religion from public life. Viewed from the theological perspective, it would also be impossible for human beings, who are inherently religious, to rid themselves from their religion when they function in the public sphere.
Pancasila neither opts for a radical secular state nor for an Islamic state. Pancasila could be seen as the result of a compromise in order to avoid the trap of the two extremes. Although separating state from religion, Pancasila still provides space for every individual to bring his/her religious aspirations to the public sphere, as long as they could contribute to the common good.
|
|
There is still my second suggestion from my previous review: instead of engaging with terrorism, the author might apply the suggested interpretation of Pancasila to other, more common issues of religious life in Indonesia, for instance, issue of interreligious marriages or religious minorities’ rights.
|
In Indonesia, religious terrorism is an important and urgent issue for discussion. The cause of terrorism discussed in this article is based on Nilay Saiya’s observation that along with the rise of religion, many governments want to suppress religion due to their fear that violence perpetrated in the name of religion could easily happen if religion is given freedom of expression. Saiya asserts that it is precisely this pressure and restraint on religious freedom that could create resistance from religion, since for a religious person, to say the least, religion is something essential. Religious terrorism could be sparked by the injustices suffered by adherents of a certain religion.
In the Indonesian context, applying Pancasila could minimize or prevent the resistance caused by the injustices since Pancasila provides ample space for religious freedom. Unfortunately the New Order of the Indonesian government, by virtue of its integralistic policy, had turned Pancasila into an instrument for restraining religious freedom. They did this by enforcing Pancasila to be the “single principle” (“azas tunggal”) by which all religious institutions must abide. This policy could germinate the seeds of resistance in religious groups.
From the perspective of Neo-Calvinism, Pancasila could be seen as having the ability to function as soft-power in efforts to solve religious terrorism in Indonesia, since in Pancasila one could find the elements of both structural pluralism and confessional pluralism.
Another reason for engaging in the problem of religious terrrorism is that other issues concerning religious life in Indonesia, such as religious minorities’ rights or regulations concerning the building of worship places, have been discussed by one of the authors—Benyamin Intan—in other articles.
|
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I still do not understand how the suggested Pancasila interpretation can become a soft power in order to prevent terrorism. The argument that religious terrorism arises because religious groups are restrained is, in my view, rather weak since empirically a lot of terrorism happens in countries where the respective religious groups enjoys much freedom, whereas there is less religious terrorism in rather secular countries. I am still convinced that the suggested Pancaila-interpretation can become important for issues such as minority rights or inter-religious marriage, but not so much that it can persuade terrorists.
Author Response
The authors provide additional explanations related to comments from reviewers. The explanation is already in the text given a yellow mark.
- Global Terrorism Database (GTD) has shown that countries without religious freedom have caused the increase of religious terrorism. Following the end of the Cold War, countries that do not acknowledge religious freedom have experienced 4184 unidentified domestic terrorist attacks, whereas countries with moderate religious freedom 1308 attacks, and countries with full religious freedom 659 attacks. Terrorist attacks in countries without religious freedom are 13,5 times higher compared to attacks in countries that support religious freedom. Aside from it, 9 out of 10 countries that suffer severe attacks from domestic religious terrorism are those that strongly restrict religious freedom (Saiya 2015, p. 373). Saiya states that it is possible for religious terrorism to occur also in countries that support religious freedom, but it would not be as widespread and was perpetrated by only a small number of individuals who even lack support from the community. Acts of religious terrorism in a country with religious freedom are usually linked with and can be traced to countries without religious freedom (Saiya 2018, p. 7).
- The presence of Pancasila could minimalize or perhaps prevent religious fundamentalism – the seed of religious terrorism – as it provides room for religion to present itself in the public sphere. Yudi Latif indicates that what secularism has done in confounding religion to the private sphere is contra-productive as this provides the opportunity for the rise of religious fundamentalism as political power (Latif 2016, p. 104). Pancasila, on the other hand, provides space for religion to contribute to the public sphere in the form of “positive values of Lordship delved from the prophetic values of religions that are inclusive, liberating, and honoring justice and brotherhood.” (Latif 2016, p. 114-115).
- The presence of Pancasila in Indonesia does not imply that Indonesia is free from religious terrorism. The infiltration of religious fundamentalism from outside could have caused the radicalization of certain groups in Indonesia. With the easy access to any information in this era of globalization, the detection of any radicalization has been difficult. Pancasila could by no means guarantee the success in persuading religious terrorists, and sometimes a hard power approach is needed in dealing with them. However, as a soft power approach Pancasila could have created a conducive atmosphere for cultivating religious freedom, which could subsequently prevent and minimalize religious terrorism.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
