GOVERNING RELIGION :

BUILDING SOCIAL COHESION & RELIGIOUS

HARMONY :
CRITICS FOR INDONESIA GOVERNMENT RELIGION
POLICY
COMMUNITY SECURITY DIMENSION
Introduction
Anthropology Facts

Six majority religions, numbers of trans-

273.5 million (2020) 205 million (2020) national faith/religion and hundreds of local
faith
Political Reality

Indonesia Ideology Indonesia constitution

(Pancasila) state that Religion is became an
accommodating freedom important part of Indonesia
believing in god are the of practices and express
one of fundamental socio-political affairs.
faith/religion.
principals.
Social Reality

Acts of intolerance such Extreme offenses based on

Social segregation and
as refusal to build houses religious sentiments such as
religious sentiment during
of worship & verbal vandalism of houses of
political polarization
discrimination worship and terrorism
Conceptual & Thinking Frameworks
Conceptual Frameworks

Identity in liberal • Thymos

democracy • Isothymia
• Megalothymia

Human Security Community Security

Research Thinking Frameworks

Anthropology Facts Political Reality

Social Reality

Threatening community safety

Social Harmony

Government Policy Community Engagement

Discussion
Policy & Regulation about Religious Affairs in Indonesia

Establishment & use of place of Prohibition of blasphemy & Relation on religious groups
worship & religious harmony blasphemy on many religious activities

Peraturan Bersama Menteri Agama &

Menteri Dalam Negeri Nomor 8 & 9
Tahun 2006 tentang Pedoman Pelaksanaan
Tugas Kepala Daerah/Wakil Kepala
Daerah Dalam Pemeliharaan Kerukunan
Umat Beragama
UU PNPS Nomor 1 Tahun 1965
tentang Pencegahan UU Perkawinan, UU Pendidikan dll
Penyalahgunaan dan/atau Penodaan
Agama 
 Religious Harmony Policy

Inter-Religious Harmony
Local Government by
Forum (FKUB) by conducting
maintaining inter-religious
inter religious dialogues,
harmony, FKUB estabhilitator &
channeling aspirations to govt.
authorized for establishment of
& providing recommendations
house of worship
for places of worship

Social & Religious Harmony

Peraturan Bersama Menteri Agama & Menteri Dalam Negeri Nomor 8 & 9 Tahun 2006 tentang Pedoman Pelaksanaan Tugas Kepala Daerah/Wakil
Kepala Daerah Dalam Pemeliharaan Kerukunan Umat Beragama
Problems : Condition of Freedom of Religion/Belief

Kondisi Kebebasan Beragama/Berkeyakinan (Setara Institute)

450
424

400

350
327
316
300

250
202 200
200 180
171
160
150

100

50

0
2018 2019 2020 2021

Peristiwa Tindakan
Problems : Offender (Setara Institute 2021)

State Actor ; 31

Non-State Actor ; 123

Problems : Most Action (Setara Institute 2021)

• Intolerance action.
• Hate speech.
• Refusal to build a house of worship
Problems : Structural Problems
Religious Affairs Central Government Absolute Authority & there are no adequate rules

• Religious conflicts usually occur at the local level, but local govt has no
Local Government authority for religious policy.
• Local governments are only guided by joint regulations at the ministry level
(Ministry of Religion and Ministry of Home Affairs) (Joint Ministerial
Regulation) Number 8 & 9 2006.
• Some political elites at the local level use religious issues for political
purposes.
• Some political elites at the local level do not dare to face the majority religious
group.

Religious Community • Represanted by Religious Harmony Forum (Forum Kerukunan Umat

Beragama/FKUB).
• Politicization and bureaucratization.
• Independency problem.
• Representation Problems.
• Unclear program and lack of cooperation with the government.
• only use a religious approach.
Structural Solution
Executive Order

• Remove recommendation function to build house of

worship from FKUB.
• Adding local beliefs as a members of FKUB.
• Religious & Social walfare approach.
• Representation mechanism.
• Building serious & substance corporation between FKUB &
Local Govt.

PBM 08 & 09 Tahun 2006

Cultural Solution

• Social walfare approach.

• Mapping potential religious conflict.
• Faith Covenant.
• Liberation Theology.
Thank You
 Discussion
• Upgrading dan revisi PBM 08 & 09, menghilangkan fungsi pemberian rekomendasi kepada
FKUB, menambahkan aliran kepercayaan sbg anggota,
• Revitalisasi FKUB tidak hanya pendekatan religious tetapi pendekatan kesejahteraan.
• Pemerintah daerah Bersama FKUB diwajibkan untuk membangun sinergi kerjasama yg
konkret.
• Kerjasama dibidang kesejahteraan & sosial kemanusiaan : ex. Employment support, debt
conselling, food aid, interfaith dialogue, peace & moderate religious relation, etc.
• Harus ada pemetaan ancaman konflik umat beragama.
• Setiap daerah (local govt & faith community) menyusun, menyepakati dan
menandatangani Faith Covenant yg berisikan perjanjian utk kerjasama yg erat satu sama
lain, bersepakat utk menyelesaikan masalah dgn mengutamakan pendekatan non-yudisial,
• Inspirasi dari konsep “teologi pembebasan” berbagi sesama tanpa membedakan agama,
kesejahteraan hadir, pertukaran perbedaan pemahaman dapat terjadi.
 Problems
• Freedom of house give Indonesia low score for free practice and express religious faith (1 to 4).
• Setara Institute (jumlah kejadian kebebasan beragama).
• Non-states actor are dominant perpetrator. (Setara & Freedomhouse).
• Socio-political condition threatening Indonesia inter-religious harmony.
• Religious conflict ussually happened in local level, but local government has no authority to
handle religious affairs.
• Local government only guided by joint regulations at the ministerial level (Ministry of Religious
Affairs and Ministry of Homeland Affairs) (Peraturan Bersama Menteri) Number 8 dan 9 2005
• Local government has no keberanian ketika berhadapan dgn kelompok agama, karena political
reason.
• Politisasi & birokratisasi FKUB.
• Ketidak jelasan program sinergi pemerintah dan FKUB.
Conceptual Frameworks
In both places neither nationalism nor religion were about to disappear as forces in world politics. They were not about
to disappear because, contemporary liberal democracies had not fully solved the problem of thymos. Thymos is the
part of the soul that craves recognition of dignity; isothymia is the demand to be respected on an equal basis with other
people; while megalothymia is the desire to be recognized as superior.

Modern liberal democracies promise and largely deliver a minimal degree of equal respect, embodied in individual
rights, the rule of law, and the franchise. What this does not guarantee is that people in a democracy will be equally
respected in practice, particularly members of groups with a history of marginalization. Entire countries can feel
disrespected, which has powered aggressive nationalism, as can religious believers who feel their faith is denigrated.

Isothymia will therefore continue to drive demands for equal recognition, which are unlikely to ever be completely
fulfilled.
Conceptual Frameworks
The key tenets of the human security concept are the broadening of the meaning of security and the focus on the
individual/people as the referent object of security. Community security as a subset of human security is defined as
protection against the breakdown of communities, as a result of loss of traditional relationships and values, and from
sectarian and ethnic violence (UNDP, 1994, pp. 31–32). The UNDP’s 1994 Human Development Report specifically looks
at the security of ethnic minorities and indigenous groups. Threats to community security can come from several
factors. These include: discrimination, exclusion, violence from other groups, and threats from the state. The UN Office
for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs also defines community security in terms of threats, p
Critical Question for Human Security
• People oriented, multisectoral, specific, prevention oriented  konsep yg luas.
• Muncul masalah  Kesulitan menetukan prioritas (ditingkat empirik) tidak focus. Terjadi kompartementialisasi (tiap isu menganggap isunya paling penting)
kemudian memunculkan ego institusi (ex : susah pembahasan RUU Kamnas, karena semua hal dibahas,ada benturan antara empirik dan gagasan semula yg
berusaha mengurangi state intervention, paradox liberalism, skrg justru proses yg butuh intervensi negara ketika isu diangkat menjadi isu security).
• Susah membedakan, ini issues, agenda, problem, crisis atau security?? Kenapa gak food crisis? Agenda? (proses sekuritisasi)
• Kemudian proses utk menggiring kearah security mengikutsertakan negara (paradox liberlalism). Awalnya to away intervention malah jadi membutuhkan
state intervention.
• Proses keistilah security kemudian melahirkan liberalism paradoxical.
• RUU Kamnas  national security ada human security yg membuat sulit secara praktis.
• Siapa yg harus memutuskan begitu banyak isu itu masuk isu keamanan, prosesnya spt apa, muncul ego.
• Tidak hanya perdebatan teoritis tapi juga perdebatan praktis.
• Kemudian muncul pertanyaan dgn kata security, kita menginkan sesuatu yg lebih tegas, spt koersif instrument, baru disebut security (ex : food security is
about distribution, health security like covid  theres controlling instrument or coersive instrument). Apakah butuh tidak koersif instrument tsb?
• Batas antara security and non security  apakah ditentukan pemerintah dgn keadaan darurat ?? Kalau tidak perlu yang tidak bisa dikatakan security, butuh
konsep pendalaman yg lebih khas dgn Batasan yg konkret.
• Ex. Terrorism  pendekatan kekerasan kalah dgn kesejahteraan.
• Kompartemantialisasi terjadi  horizontal dan vertical begitu ditempelkan kata security, maka pemerntah lgsg secara naruliah maju. Muncul tindakan
darurat, muncul aksi dadakan unplaned
• Insecurity  strong leader  big government
• Proses sekuritisasi bisa dilakukan oleh komunitas epistemic, NGO or other actors  kemudian menjadi security issues baru masuk negara.
• Definisi kurang ekslusif, talk about everything and then became nothing.