Why do Indonesian politicians promote shari’a laws? An analytic framework for Muslim-majority democracies

Abstract

Taking the discussion in the existing literature on the adoption of shari’a laws in democratising Muslim-majority countries as a starting point, we posit that there are two broad motivations for democratically-elected politicians to adopt shari’a laws and regulations: ideological conviction on the one hand and response to the expressed or perceived preference of constituents on the other hand. The ‘demand side’ can be further divided into the preferences of individual voters, and the interests of groups which act as power brokers, influencing the voting choices of individual citizens. These groups may be economic, religious, or other actors. These motivations are not mutually exclusive; the passage of a given shari’a regulation may fulfil two or all three of them simultaneously. However, we posit that the interaction between the place, timing, and content of shari’a laws passed in a nation as a whole will vary in various predictable ways, according to the dominant motivations. The dominant motivation may also affect the vigour with which the law is implemented.

Keywords:

• Elections
• Indonesia
• Islamism
• shari’a law
• Southeast Asia

Notes

1. Elaigwu and Galadima, “The Shadow of Sharia”; Harnischfeger, Democratisation and Islamic Law; Kendhammer, “The Sharia Controversy.”

2. Haqqani and Fradkin, “Going Back to the Origins”; Yavuz , Turkey; Zaman, “Pakistan.”

3. Barfield, Afghanistan; Brown, Egypt; Harnischfeger, Democratisation and Islamic Law; Longley, “The High Water Mark”; Roy, Islam; Wiktorowicz, Islamic.

4. Brinkley Messick described Islamic law as a ‘total discourse’ that includes religious, legal, moral, and economic rules and regulations. See Messick, The Calligraphic State, 3. Islamic law has only been codified in the context of colonial transformations of Muslim countries. See Hallaq, Shari’a between Past and Present, 371–499. Therefore, a complete and mutually agreed upon canon of ‘Islamic law’ does not exist.

5. Kitschelt and Wilkinson, “Citizen–Politician Linkages,” 8.

6. Rural districts and municipalities share the third level of the administrative hierarchy in Indonesia after the national and provincial governments. They are headed by district heads and mayors, respectively. To avoid repetition, we use the term ‘district’ and ‘district head’ to cover all units and leaders at this level unless there are developments distinctive to municipalities.

7. Badan Pusat Statistik, Kewarganegaraan.

8. Local regulations are adopted by the local government head together with the local parliament while executive orders are issued by the local government head alone. For brevity’s sake we refer to both legal instruments as ‘local regulations’ only.

9. Anwar, Developing Social Fiqh; Beatty, A Shadow has Fallen; Nakamura, Islam and Democracy in Indonesia, 28.

10. Onishi, “Extremism Spreads across Indonesian Penal Code.”

11. Buehler, “Subnational Islamization through Secular Parties.”

12. Bush, “Regional Sharia Regulations.”

13. Crouch, “Stretching the Scope.”

14. Buehler, “The Rise of Shari’a By-Laws.”

15. Buehler and Tan, “Party–Candidate Relationships.”

16. Wilson, “Morality Racketeering.”

17. Rosser et al., “Leaders, Elites and Coalitions”; Erb and Sulistiyanto, Deepening.

18. Aspinall and Sukmajati, Politik.

19. In our database, 36 regulations simply refer to prohibiting ‘sins’ without specifying what these are.

20. Buehler, “The Rise of Shari’a By-Laws.”

21. Wilson, “Morality Racketeering.”

22. These two provinces have adopted the highest number of shari’a regulations in Eastern Indonesia and Java respectively.

23. As mentioned above, ‘districts’ is the official term used for rural jurisdictions, while ‘municipalities’ denote urban areas. The urbanisation of Indonesia, especially on the main island Java, has turned many ‘rural’ districts into semi-urban landscapes in recent years.

24. For an account of why shari’a regulations have spread to East Java, see Turmudi, “Patronage, Aliran and Islamic Ideologies,” 38–60.

25. Tjetjep Muchtar Soleh was first elected in 2006, and re-elected in 2011. His administration had passed no shari'a regulation up until the end of our data collection in 2012.

26. Anonymous, Transkrip.

27. Tribun Timur, Patabai, 24.

28. Patabai Pabokori, Mengewal, 133.

29. Tribun Timur, PS Daerah, 17.

30. Buehler, The Politics of Shari’a Law, 249.

31. Patabai Pabokori, personal communication, 14 September 2006.

32. Ibrahim et al., Parlemen.

33. Alamsyah, Laporan.