The Return of Aliran to the Lexicon of Indonesian Politics

The Return of Aliran to the Lexicon of Indonesian Politics Leonard C. Sebastian (bio) To best appreciate Diego Fossati's book Unity through Division: Political Islam, Representation and Democracy in Indonesia from the angle of political developments in Indonesia, I would recommend that it be read in tandem with his article "The Resurgence of Ideology in Indonesia: Political Islam, Aliran, and Political Behaviour."1 Fossati does not use the word aliran (streams of political thought) in the book. Instead, he uses terms like "ideological division" and "partisan polarization" (p. 4) to refer to the same phenomenon of division between "pluralist" (both nationalist and traditionalist/Nahdlatul Ulama–affiliated Muslims) and "Islamist" (modernist and newer movements like Salafi, Partai Keadilan Sejahtera, and so forth). My view is that Unity through Division was written with a different audience in mind than this article, namely, general political science researchers who are less familiar with developments in Indonesia or who are focused on political developments more broadly.2 It is really the skillful application of quantitative methods to the study of identity politics and polarization that the author seems to want to emphasize in this book. Additionally, he is writing primarily to demonstrate political polarization as a mechanism or factor leading to democratic regression. The book seems targeted to an audience of North American–trained political scientists specializing in the study of democratization and democratic regression, largely through the use of quantitative methods. This is understandable. In the aftermath of the Trump presidential election and Brexit referendum in 2016, there has been a fascination within American-trained social science academia to address the big political science questions like the rise of populist leaders or sources of identity politics with quantitative methods—a research tool much in vogue. I appreciated and learned from Fossati's skilled employment of quantitative methods End Page 226 and provision of comprehensive surveys that delve into the complexities of societal polarization, particularly as they concern political Islam. Surveys, together with graphs and charts, were used effectively to illustrate divisions within Indonesian society. However, this quantitative approach does have inherent shortcomings. For example, what are the historical origins of polarization in Indonesia? The more eclectic audience that reads the Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, for example, may find that Unity through Division does not provide an answer to this question. For researchers who subscribe to the classical school for the study of Indonesia, some degree of caveat emptor applies. To me, Fossati's greatest contribution to the study of Indonesian politics has been his rejuvenation of aliran as a salient feature. Aliran has been largely missing in the study of Indonesia since the reformasi era. By confirming that identity/aliran politics, which have long divided the nationalist (or pluralist, to use Fossati's term) and Islamist political activists in Indonesia, still remain relevant, Fossati offers us a different approach from that of other scholars such as Edward Aspinall and Ward Berenschot or Vedi Hadiz.3 These scholars tend to hold the view that aliran politics have largely been displaced by transactional or patron-client politics as determined by coalitional arrangements between different political parties and the relationship between politicians and their political parties in contemporary Indonesian politics. Instead, Fossati finds that under certain circumstances (e.g., severe politicization and polarization), political aliran can be made salient in an Indonesian election cycle. Not only that, he finds that politicians and political parties are able to manipulate and control the level of politicization of identity politics through their statements and rhetoric made on the campaign trail. Utilizing multilevel statistical analysis, Fossati also demonstrates that politicians from across the ideological divide, namely from nationalist parties—e.g., Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan (PDIP) and NasDem—and Islamist parties—e.g., Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS) and Partai Persatuan Pembangunan (PPP)—have very different concepts of what constitutes the idea of Indonesia. Likewise, they disagree on whether or to what extent Islam should be part of the state's ideological foundation, or even whether being a devout Muslim should be considered part of End Page 227 Indonesian citizenship. Fossati argues that this ideological divide is the basis for the identity-based politicization and polarization that has affected...