The Issue of Islamic Party is too Normative

For less than a year now, political parties which will compete in gaining constituents in the 2004 election have consolidated themselves. However more recently, several Islamic parties or parties based on Islamic constituents, have experienced a worrying fragmentation. Why are Islamic parties so susceptible to fragmentation when unity of ummat (community) has been such a vocal issue? What factors determine the marriages and divorces amongst politicians within Islamic parties?
Syafi’i Anwar MA, Executive Director of International Center for Islam and Pluralism (ICIP) analyzed this phenomenon through a political and cultural approach in an interview with Ulil Abshar-Abdalla (25/9/03). To this PhD candidate at Melbourne University, in many developing countries the primordial political culture is often unable to rationally resolve institutional matters.
ULIL ABSHAR-ABDALLA: Brother Syafi’i, How do you respond to the phenomenon of the susceptibility for dissent within these Islamic parties?
SYAFI’I ANWAR: I notice that the fundamental problem is one of leadership. If we observe the background to the problem further, we’ll find that the starting point is an issue of leadership culture. I don’t know exactly what is the internal situation within those parties since I am not a member of an Islamic party, but I have many friends in them. As far s I can tell from my observations the conflicts often begin from insubstantial problems such as personality conflicts.
ULIL: You have said that the problem is with the leadership in the parties. Now there is Hamzah Haz in PPP, PBB has Yusril Ihza Mahendra, and there is Gus Dur in PKB. What is the crucial distinction between each leader such that they cannot function as a united entity as the community wishes?
SYAFI’I ANWAR: In my observation, the problem is not about the mission or vision of any one of these leaders but one of competing styles of leadership. Amin Rais speak out frankly, uninhibitedly and sometimes he is not wise. Yusril on the other hand is sometimes too rigid. Hamzah Haz is different, he is a politician who blows with the wind, easily-changing views, and that maybe natural for a politician. The problem is why fragmentation happens. I simply think it is not about the vision and mission but about conflicting styles of leadership.
I said it is because the leadership style is central to the leadership, and because every party has a leader figure. I agree that the constituents are important, but as long as the performance of the leader is not good, he will not be easily accepted by all parties.
ULIL: Why do their leadership styles bring them into dispute?
SYAFI’I ANWAR: Because our culture is primordial. We are often incapable of solving personal differences in rational ways. This actually is the common problem facing politicians in developing countries. The matter is that they are not talking about substantial issues.
ULIL: Actually establishing unity is easier at the level of the community than at the level of leadership.
SYAFI’I ANWAR: That’s right. As I’ve said, from observing the political culture, the Indonesian community is actually moderate, tolerant, and appreciative as long as the leader is a good leader.
ULIL: What is the type of political culture among our leaders that they can’t meet up?
SYAFI’I ANWAR: It is competition which is empty in terms of any clear ideology, vision and mission of the party. The matter of vision and mission of these Islamic parties is a problem and is not clear.
ULIL: A disease in our political culture is the clash among the leaders which then influences the base. Why is this so?
SYAFI’I ANWAR: I agree. But I want to emphasize that it’s not only a disease in the Islamic parties but of leaders of parties who prefer to be politicians than statesmen. It’s the biggest problem facing the nation. So, the Islamic party is rich in politicians but poor in terms of statesman.
ULIL: Do politicians always have bad images?
SYAFI’I ANWAR: No. but a politician should think to be statesman. It means, he does not only think in terms of his party, but in the future he should appear as credible, honest, as a man of integrity acting for the state’s best interests.
ULIL: It is all right if a politician is not a statesman.  But if he is a position and salary hunter, he confuses the community.
SYAFI’I ANWAR: Yes. Sometimes they used to read the verse of kursi… hahaha (Quranic verse named kursi which means position). So their orientation is not based upon the people’s interest. This is a big problem for Islamic parties. Besides, the problems concerning the Islamic party are normative and unrelated to really important matters, for instance human rights, employment, removing corruption and so on. Those issues are and should be more fundamental than issues about the enforcement of Islamic sharia which is a normative issue they concentrate upon.
ULIL: We even have seen the emergence of an Islamic Sharia Party.
SYAFI’I ANWAR: I think it will be contra productive. People currently wish for real solutions to real problems. At least the Islamic parties should have clear agendas for facing real problems. As Olivier Roy writes in his book The Failure of Political Islam, the main failure of Islamic parties which we can learn from other state’s experiences, especially Pakistan, is that they have no real agendas for solving the fundamental problems in society, like human rights, corruption and so on. They always focus on normative issues like the obligation of enforcing God’s law and so on.
ULIL: There are many stories about unpromising Islamic parties. My question is this, could we have any expectations for a better performance from Partai Keadilan Sejahtera/PKS (Justice and Welfare Party)?
SYAFI’I ANWAR: I want to see the matter critically. I agree if it is said that PKS is good enough from the aspect of organization, mission, vision, and in having an exemplary board. Here I’m in agreement with Martin Van Bruinessen, an Indonesianist from Netherlands. But the problem is related to the social base of PKS which is limited if it wants to compete in the 2004 election. I have observed that its mass base is on campuses which means PKB is not convincingly populist. Furthermore, PKS concentrates on normative matters as well.
Secondly, even though I am a member of Muhammadiyah, I am interested in Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa/PKB (a party delivered by Nahdlatul Ulama’) as it has a real social base. PKB’s constituency is clear, but the problem there is due to internal friction. As an observer, I must say that it is pitiable. I hope this problem can be resolved, otherwise, it will not only harm the Nahdliyyin, but also the nation in general. The internal clash can be utilized to the advantage of many parties.
ULIL: The problem of PKB is related to the strongman figure of Gus Dur. How do you read the situation?
SYAFI’I ANWAR: Gus Dur’s domination is really a big problem. When we talk about political matters, PKB has a real social base. My concern in PKB is great since it has a more real community. The friction and the splitting potential could have major implications.
What worries me is that this problem is not specific to PKB, but also is occurring in PPP involving Hamzah Haz and Zainuddin MZ. It is the same case there with the reconciliation between them who daily talk about the unity of community.
ULIL: PKB’s mass in the villages is wide and influenced by primordial views about leadership. If their leaders split, they would split as well. How are they to overcome this?
You are right. That’s why the leaders of party should be istiqamah (act in a straight forward way) and maintain a low profile. They should emphasize how to think about and give priority to future prospects. But in politics, keeping a low profile seems to be very politically expensive by nature.

The Four Imams: Leaders of a Third Way

If we look back on the lives of the four imams – Abū Hanifah, Mālik b. Anas, al-Shāfi`ī, and Ahmad b. Hanbal – we find that they were extremely tolerant people. They were respectful of their contemporaries, predecessors and the earlier generations of Muslims, whether they agreed with their views or not. Indeed, they followed the example of their predecessors in being tolerant of differences.

Allah says: “And those who came (into the faith) after them say: Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who were before us in the faith, and place not in our hearts any rancour toward those who believe. Our Lord! You are full of kindness, most merciful.” [Sūrah al-Hashr: 10]

The four imams -- the leading scholars who founded the four canonical schools of Islamic Law -- never allowed past disagreements to cause them to disparage or raise suspicions about the people of an earlier generation who held divergent views. Likewise, they never called for an inquest of their contemporaries who disagreed with them and they never got involved in their affairs except in a positive way.

The four imams certainly disagreed with one another and with other jurists of their day, but they always maintained their calm in debate and disagreed respectfully. They never permitted others who spread their ideas to use their teachings as a source of conflict or as a means to cause division.

It could possibly be that the principle they developed of coexistence in the face of changing political and social circumstances came as a result of their engaging with the substantial societal changes they witnessed during the era in which they lived. They recognized a need to develop a clear and precise approach to respond to such changes.

It can be observed that none of the four imams ever accepted an official political post, not as judge nor magistrate nor anything else. At the same time, they also never constituted themselves as a political opposition. They never gave their support to the government’s political opponents, even though all four imams times suffered government persecution on account of accusations that they did. However, a close examination of the imams’ historical circumstances shows that such accusations were baseless. Instead, they were victims of the old idea: “You are either with us or against us.”

Their insistence on intellectual autonomy is what brought such suspicion upon them, along with how unscrupulous people would sometimes manipulate their statements and interpret their juristic verdicts for various political ends.

In truth, the four imams represented a third way: neither aligning themselves with the interests of those in power nor with the political opposition. This allowed them to carry out a vital leadership role of their own in maintaining social stability in a society made up of a number of contending factions: between the ruling class and the populace, as well as between a bewildering array of ideological factions and intellectual movements, not to mention ethnic and tribal differences. After all this, we can understand how they were so good at tolerating the disagreements of their colleagues among the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence!

They all kept a measured distance from the various contending elements in society while remaining fully connected to society. This made it possible for them to be a point of stability and balance, which protected Islamic civilization from a great deal of conflict, strife, and social disintegration.

The role they played in their times is all the more needed today with our widening social and class disparity and a weakened culture of tolerance, conditions that promote conflict whenever conditions are ripe for it.

The presence of an autonomous knowledge-based mediating authority is needed to act as a a source of strength for the weak and a moderating influence on the strong, to arbitrate in matters, and to impart to society the vales of tolerance and mutual understanding. There is a need for those who can speak out for justice and the inalienable rights that are needed to ensure peace and security in any country, and which can prevent violent factions and extremist movements of whatever persuasion from developing.

The world contains nations where you find a strong government and an equally strong civil society. They are held together by organizing principles and their vital, political, social, and charitable institutions. This is what makes the government strong through its people and the people strong through their government.

Most Muslim countries do not enjoy this balancing of institutional power, essential for stability and continuity, which comes from the presence of mediating institutions that are widely recognized and accepted on both an official and popular level, institutions whose role is often only appreciated when their loss leads to the erosion of society.

Ideological and partisan disagreements, religious differences, and other potential sources of division do not inevitably lead to conflict and strife. Allah says in the Qur’ān: “It is He who has spread out the Earth for all His creatures.” [Sūrah al-Rahmān: 10]

Within the sphere Islam, matters are referred back to universal principles and the legitimate life needs that Islam upholds. When such a reference becomes impracticable due to the severity of the disagreement tor disparity of the parties involved and the matter cannot be brought to a resolution through dialogue, there still remains a broader circle for coexistence: the one of: “knowing one another” referred to in the verse: “O humankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that you may come to know one another.” [Sūrah al-Hujurāt: 13]

This coming to know one another, this mutual and reciprocal knowledge of the other, is the foundation for social relationships necessitating goodwill, justice, and kindness.

It is possible that through such relationships you will realize your own best interests as well as those of the people you disagree with at one and the same time. We see this in so many aspects of life: commercial dealings, in public administration, health, development, and industry.

Returning to the four imams, it needs to be pointed out that the disagreements between them in Islamic Law were nothing compared to the disagreements that existed among the Companions and Successors. Moreover, they introduced through their own juristic efforts a number of opinions that were new to their generation. Therefore, it is wrong for anyone to claim that their views abrogate the views of their predecessors and exclude all views other than theirs.

The later scholars who worked within the framework of one of the four schools of law, though they did not usually go off in an entirely independent direction, never ceased to engage in choosing between different opinions and deducing new rulings on the basis of precedent. I have studied the legal preferences of the preeminent Hanbalī jurist Ibn Qudāmah, and found that he sometimes adopted a position that was at variance to what was adopted by all four schools of thought. He did so after acknowledging and discussing all of their received opinions His judgments in these cases are often quite erudite and impressive.

We can find similar cases among the jurists of all four schools of law. This is because the views of the Companions, Successors, and other jurists are no less important than the views of the four imams. They were also from the earliest Muslim generations and theirs is a rich and valuable legacy which has been preserved for us in works like the Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzāq, the Musannaf of Ibn Abī Shaybah, and the writings of Ibn Mundhir.

When we look at the magnitude of the changes taking place in the world today, we can appreciate the value of there being such a broad spectrum of opinion during the earliest days of Islam. Their contributions should not be ignored, since they enrich our understanding of Islamic Law. Though there may have been times in the history of Muslim civilization that such a plurality of opinion was unnecessary for society to function, our present age is certainly not one of those times.