Religion during New Order by Nihayatul Wafiroh

Robert W. Hefner (2000) addresses the democratization and civil Islam in Indonesia. Indeed, culture, organization and religion influence in the process of democracy. In case of Indonesia, ICMI played an important rule during Suharto regime. Many components attempted to use ICMI as a vehicle to achieve their goals. In another side, the state played ICMI to control the opponents. From Hefner’s explanation, I could figure out that religious organization has bargaining position as civil society agents.

Meredith L. Weiss (2006) asserts that, “While CSAs played a pivotal role in opposing the ancient regime, they have retained little institutionalized clout since then except as monitors and petitioner.” It is understandable, moreover. When the regime wanted to give signs of his power, the religious issues were the perfect fuse. For instance, in the late 1998 and early 1999, there was the chaos in Banyuwangi. Hundreds people who were categorized as sorcerers were killed. Indeed, most of them were the religious teachers. It recalls me in the frightening situation at the time. In fact, it was to reduce the power of Gus Dur. Since the state always forced and controlled the religious organizations, they received sympathies from people.

In addition, it is understood that after the regime fell, the leaders from many religious organizations ran to the political sphere easily. Recently, Islamic boarding schools also take chances of this situation to send their people in the election. The networking, charisma, and popularity of the pesantren’s leaders are the guarantee for the candidates to be elected although they are lack capability in the politic.

Additionally, the position of students in the reformed era was significant. Weiss states that students who represented the social educated group voiced the condition of society. However, Weiss noted that some groups of student who linked to the NGO made the distance with the poor even though the issues of poor were their commodity to attack the state. In my understanding, this critic might be not for students in Islamic state university (IAIN) in Jogjakarta since the majority of the students there came from the farmers. They were already familiar with the condition of poor, so their demonstration against government was pure for the society, and they connected with the poor.

Economy was also the cause of Suharto’s fall. The economical development in Indonesia could be separated with the Chinese immigrants (John T Sidel). Although they are only minority, their power of economy controls other groups even the majority groups. The violence in May 1998 was the accumulation of abhorrence with Chinese.

Edward Aspirall (2005) categorizes four main responses to the mixture of repression and tolerance under New Order regime: Mobilizational opposition, Semiopposition, Alegal, and Social Organizations. Muridan Swijoyo also classified two groups. First is Gerakan Kritik Orde Baru (GKOB), the critical movement against new order. The second one is Gerakan Anti Orde Baru (GAOB), the anti New Order movement. They had different perspectives of New Order, and, as a result, the expression to demonstrate was not same.