Indonesian election sees Islamic parties at a crossroads

The popular votes for Islamic parties have declined significantly from their peak in 1999. The United Development Party (PPP) gained about 11 per cent of the seats in 1999 but only got 8 per cent in 2004 and 5 per cent in 2009. Meanwhile, the National Awakening Party (PKB) earned around 13 per cent in 1999, but only got 11 per cent in 2004 and less than 5 per cent in 2009. Similarly, the National Mandate Party (PAN), which secured about 7 per cent in 1999, declined to 6.4 per cent in 2004 and 6 per cent in 2009. On the other hand, the more progressive Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) performed slightly better than its counterparts. PKS only ran in the election from 2004, winning about 7.3 per cent in 2004 and 7.8 per cent in 2009.

In comparison, the nationalist and secular parties like Golkar and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) won respectively 22 per cent and 34 per cent of the legislative seats in 1999; 22 per cent and 19 per cent in 2004; and 14.4 per cent and 14 per cent in 2009. Meanwhile, the Democrat Party (PD), which entered the election fray in 2004, won around 7 per cent in its debut and jumped massively to almost 21 per cent in 2009.

The decline in votes for the Islamic parties was not merely due to the change in their political orientation. There were also other contributing factors, such as mismanagement, corruption, internal conflict, lack of leaders and poor performance in their governance, particularly in provincial and regional governments.

Thus the PKS, which won in the West Java gubernatorial election of 2008, was unable to prevent the Muslim-backed candidate for governor of Jakarta from losing to an outsider backed by the secular nationalist PDI-P in the 2012 gubernatorial election.

In light of these shifts in voter support, will the Islamic parties still advocate shariah law and an Islamic state? What will be the effects of attempting to implement shariah law on Indonesia’s political map? Will increasing religious conservatism among the population prompt the Islamic parties to change their political strategy?

Although Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world, comprising 85 per cent of the country, there are many Muslims, apart from non-Muslims, who have opposed previous attempts to include shariah in the Jakarta Charter, or turn Indonesia into an Islamic state. Islamic groups have factored this sizeable minority in their political campaign and understand that a coercive approach to push an Islamic agenda will not only threaten the unity of the Indonesian republic but also cause them to lose popular support.

Nevertheless, Islamic groups have long enjoyed a favourable position within the political spectrum of Indonesia, with two mass organisations providing them popular support, namely the Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah. Towards the end of his 30-year rule, former president Suharto acknowledged their role and sought to co-opt Islamic groups. Following the collapse of the Suharto regime and the decentralisation of the political system, Islamic groups have flourished.

However, the blossoming of Islamic parties has caused a fragmentation of their voter support while weakening their ability to unite on a single agenda. Divisions also sharpened among the groups. Although contesting for the Islamic votes, these parties have agreed to accept democracy as an all-purpose tool to capture mainstream votes. Some Islamic groups, however, such as the Hizbut Tahrir of Indonesia, reject the democracy system and choose to strive outside the system.

With respect to the fragmented votes, the secretary-general of PKS, Mahfudz Siddiq, recently stated that if the Islamic parties want to have an Islam-oriented presidential candidate, they must maintain effective communication between themselves. Internal friction and disputes among the parties must also be settled.

The debate among Islamic parties over whether shariah law will be instituted in Indonesia will not end just yet. And bringing up the issue of shariah certainly creates tension among potential voters. Even among and within Islam groups, there are different views pertaining to the establishment of shariah. Disagreement among these groups over instituting shariah may be sharpening as well. This in turn will lead to unwarranted competition among dominant Islamic parties with a stake in the issue.

Meanwhile, nationalist parties have joined the fray over political Islam, which is no longer the monopoly of Islamic parties. A burgeoning conservatism among voters has led nationalist parties to join the bandwagon of supporting several shariah-based policies in some provinces and districts.

While the growing conservatism provides a chance for Islamic parties to boost their electoral power, they have to change their approach to compete against the nationalist parties. Islamic parties need to improve their track record in solving mismanagement issues, settling internal frictions and eradicating corruption. With society becoming more critical at the same time, this will not be an easy task. The massive flow of information both from mainstream and social media makes the situation even more complex.

These Islamic parties may face the question of whether to maintain their current pragmatic approach or “re-Islamise” their strategy. But it is paramount for the Islamic parties to overcome their declining performances first in order to survive and enhance or even maintain their current electoral support. The various Islamic groups will have little choice but to consolidate themselves as a unified political movement and modify their strategy to meet the increasingly conservative and critical landscape.    

 

Adhi Priamarizki is a research analyst with the Indonesia programme at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. 

 

RSIS Commentaries.