Law and Religion in Indonesia: The Constitutional Court and the Blasphemy Law

Crouch, Melissa

doi:10.1017/s2194607800000582

Cited by 31 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indonesia's blasphemy provision is found in Article 156a of the Dutch-inspired Criminal Code, which is based on Law 1/PNPS/1965 concerning the prevention of religious abuse promulgated by Indonesia's first president Sukarno. Blasphemy was formalized during the Cold War period, a volatile time in Indonesian politics when the Indonesian Communist Party was on the rise and the spread of mysticism threatened the country's five (now six) officially recognized religions (Crouch 2012). According to a study by Indonesia's Setara Institute, Law 1/PNPS/1965 and its implementing regulations concerning religion are held to be incongruent with the Indonesian constitution (Halili 2016, 7–8).…”

Section: Judicial Legitimacy Under Blasphemy Regimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2009 the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute (LBH), along with prominent legal and human rights organizations in Indonesia such as Imparsial, ELSAM, and the Setara Institute, initiated a judicial review of Law 1/PNPS/1965 and Criminal Code Article 156a. The legal applicants argued that blasphemy provisions contravene the constitutional right to religious freedom in Indonesia (Crouch 2012, 1). In a 2011 Amicus published by human rights experts from Cairo and London, Law 1/PNPS/1965 concerning the prevention of religious abuse is determined to be “fundamentally incompatible with Indonesia's obligations under international human rights law” (Amicus 2011, 3) 6 .…”

Section: The 2009–2010 Constitutional Court Judicial Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Blasphemy and Judicial Legitimacy in Indonesia

Tyson

2020

Politics and Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When contentious blasphemy laws are pressed into service in fledgling democracies with illiberal tendencies such as Indonesia, critical questions arise about judicial integrity and the political nature of blasphemy trials. Judicial legitimacy in Indonesia is defined according to international standards and conventions. The focus is on judicial propriety rather than the popularity or majoritarian appeal of court decisions. In May 2017 a watershed moment occurred in Indonesia as the former governor of Jakarta Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (popularly known as Ahok) was found guilty of desecrating religion and sentenced to 2 years in prison. Judgments rendered in politicized blasphemy trials such as these fail to meet standards of impartiality, and when discursive transgressions of a blasphemous nature occur there are deep ambiguities of meaning and intent. This paper contends that the revival of blasphemy as a punishable crime relates to political power calculations and electoral opportunities, and offers an analysis of blasphemy in Indonesia through the quasi-historical lens of a discursive crime premised on the fallacy that religious offence threatens public order. Blasphemy trials are further complicated by the fact that religious authorities and Islamic mass organizations in Indonesia have significant influence over judicial processes.

show abstract

Section: Judicial Legitimacy Under Blasphemy Regimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The 2009–2010 Constitutional Court Judicial Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blasphemy and Judicial Legitimacy in Indonesia

Tyson

2020

Politics and Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although it is difficult to disentangle these two explanations, many have argued that religion is an important factor in Indonesian politics (Crouch 2012; Tanuwidjaja 2010). Moreover, 72% of Indonesian Muslims favor making sharia the official law (Pew Forum 2013, 15).…”

Section: Cross-country Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although it is difficult to disentangle these two explanations, many have argued that religion is an important factor in Indonesian politics (Crouch 2012;Tanuwidjaja 2010). Moreover, 72% of Indonesian Fundamentalist pro-separation aversion H4 stronger among low than high fundamentalists 3-Way Interaction with Country and Fundamentalism H12…”

Section: Cross-country Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Paradoxical Religiosity Effect: Religion and Politics in Indonesia and the United States

Sumaktoyo

Ottati

Untoro

2015

Politics and Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that personal religiosity and political religiosity are distinct attributes of a political candidate. Personal religiosity reflects a candidate's level of personal religious commitment and political religiosity reflects the candidate's policy regarding separating versus blending religion and politics. The paradoxical religiosity hypothesis predicts that, within a democracy, personal religiosity will increase voters' endorsement of a candidate whereas political religiosity will decrease voters' endorsement. We test this hypothesis comparatively in two experiments, one performed within a long-standing democracy containing predominantly Christian voters (the United States), and the other within a more recent democracy containing predominantly Muslim voters (Indonesia). We demonstrate the robustness of the paradoxical religiosity effect and its persistence across the two countries, suggesting that Muslim Indonesians are no less capable than Christian Americans in separating the sacred and the secular.

show abstract

“… 15 While the MORA has retained its role of regulating religion in Indonesia, even after democratization in 1998, the high courts have heard a number of cases involving religious laws, such as the Blasphemy Law, the Polygamy Law, the Religious Courts Law, and the Places of Worship Law (Butt 2010; Crouch 2012; Pausacker 2012). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulation of “Religion” and the “Religious”: The Politics of Judicialization and Bureaucratization in India and Indonesia

Sezgin

Künkler

2014

Comp Stud Soc Hist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article compares the strategies through which Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Indonesia have regulated religion and addressed questions of what constitutes “the religious” in the post-independence period. We show that the dominant approach pursued by the Indian state has been one of judicialization—the delegation of religious questions to the high courts—while in Indonesia it has predominantly been one of bureaucratization—the regulation of religious issues by the Ministry of Religious Affairs. Contrary to the expectation that judicialization devitalizes normative conflicts while bureaucratization, more frequently associated with authoritarian politics, “locks” these conflicts “in,” we show that these expectations have not materialized, and at times, the effects have been reverse. Engaging the literatures on judicialization and on bureaucratization, we argue that what determines the consequences of the policy toward religion is less the choice of the implementing institution (i.e., the judiciary or bureaucracy) than the mode of delegation (vertical versus horizontal) which shapes the relationship between the policy-maker and the institution implementing it. Bureaucrats, judges, and elected politicians in multicultural societies around the world encounter questions of religious nature very similar to those that authorities in India and Indonesia have faced. How they address the challenge of religious heterogeneity has a profound impact on prospects of nation-building and democratization. It is therefore imperative that the consequences of the policy toward religion, and even more so the consequences of political delegation, be studied more systematically.

show abstract

Law and Religion in Indonesia: The Constitutional Court and the Blasphemy Law

Cited by 31 publications

References 10 publications

Blasphemy and Judicial Legitimacy in Indonesia

Blasphemy and Judicial Legitimacy in Indonesia

The Paradoxical Religiosity Effect: Religion and Politics in Indonesia and the United States

Regulation of “Religion” and the “Religious”: The Politics of Judicialization and Bureaucratization in India and Indonesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About