Introduction
Terrorism has become a perennial problem for many nations, including Indonesia, country with the largest Muslim population in the world. It has been plagued by the threat of violent extremism, both offline and online. The perpetrators of terrorism are now not only in groups, but also individuals known as “lone wolf”. In 2020, anti-terror squad detachment-88 have arrested at least 228 terrorism-related suspects. Unfortunately, the varying motivations and triggers such as economic and political factors have added to the complexity of mitigating this threat. Due to the complexity of this issue, the Indonesian government recently issued a Presidential Regulation (Perpres) Number 7 of 2021 concerning the National Action Plan to Prevent and Mitigate Violent Extremism that Leads to Terrorism, known as the RAN PE, which delegates the eradication of violent radicalism not only to the government, but also to civil society.
The Controversies
However, the emergence of the Perpres is not without controversy. This new regulation enables community policing , a move that rights activists have cautioned could lead to wrongful arrests and division among the public, sparking numerous questions. What is the definition of “radical” stated in the Perpres? Who are the targets of this new law? What are the limitations or criteria to ascertain a person or action as a violent extremist or an act of violent extremism?
The chairman of Advocacy Division of the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute Foundation (YLBHI), Muhammad Isnur argued that the spectrum related to terrorism issues is very wide; there is nonviolent extremism, violent extremism that does not lead to terrorism, and violent extremism that leads to terrorism. According to him, there is no clarity regarding the definition of “radical” and criteria as to who this rule is targeting, making it open for interpretation. It is feared that this could lead to divisions in the community due to feelings of suspicion and a tendency to find fault or “witch hunts”.
Rights group Setara Institute deputy director Bonar Tigor Naipospos also expressed his concerns that the lack of public knowledge about definitions would lead to discrimination or elimination of certain groups, not to mention the potentially high numbers of criminalization when coupled with the Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law. This law itself has long been criticized for its ambiguity –so known as ‘catchall articles’– and is often misused by certain parties to ensnare opponents.
In the Perpres, violent extremism that leads to terrorism is described as a belief and or actions that use violent means or threats of extreme violence with the aim of supporting or committing acts of terrorism. Here, terrorism is also defined as an act that uses violence or threats of violence that create an atmosphere of terror or widespread fear, which can cause mass casualties, or cause damage or destruction to vital strategic objects, the environment, public facilities, or international facilities with ideological, political, or security disturbance motives.
Based on this description, the author argues that the key words for this Perpres are “violence” and “terrorism”. The radical thoughts and actions referred to in this regulation must contain elements of violence, more specifically, intended for terrorism. Because of this, the title of this regulation is detailed and long so as to anticipate multiple interpretations and misunderstandings of ordinary people even when they hear it for the first time.
The intended target of this regulation is also quite clear if one, for example, is well-versed with terrorism incidents and can easily categorize perpetrators as terrorists. But beyond that, the challenge remains at identifying and categorizing an individual as an extremist with the potential to carry out acts of terror. Therefore, the government must establish clear boundaries and criteria in the Perpres.
The Presidential Regulation, initiated by the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT), consists of 12 articles which explain the coordination and functions of state institutions and local governments in mitigating violent extremism. It also contains an appendix containing 125 action plans involving more than 20 ministries and agencies, as well as civil society. As part of the plans, BNPT and national police will shortly conduct outreach and training -known as ‘community policing’- for Indonesians including youth leaders, religious leaders, mass media, lecturers and influencers.
The action plan also aims to deal with the triggers for violent extremism, which consists of two factors, namely conducive environments and structural contexts, and the radicalization process. Conducive environments and structural contexts consist of economic inequality, marginalization and discrimination, poor governance, human rights violations and weak law enforcement, prolonged conflicts, and radicalization within prisons. Whereas the radicalization process entails several factors, including the individual’s background and motivation, victimization, collective disappointment, as well as distortion of certain understandings (rooted in beliefs, political ideology, ethnicity and cultural differences, and social networks).
The potential for misuse of this regulation as a ‘catchall articles’ and a means for ‘witch hunts’ cannot be underestimated. We have recently seen how the hardline group Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) was linked with the Islamic State (IS) terrorist organization, thus strengthening reasons for its dissolution. Two old videos resurfaced when the Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs Mahfud MD announced the disbandment of FPI. One video pertains to Rizieq Shihab’s lecture calling for support for IS while the other shows FPI members supporting IS’ mass pledge in Makassar in January 2015. Although not related to the latest Perpres, how FPI is linked with IS seems like a deliberate attempt to find fault. This is despite FPI in 2014, since the emergence of IS, issuing a declaration rejecting the terrorist organization. Also, why were these old videos brought up again, in lieu of new evidence, when the government was about to dissolve FPI?
A Means for the Government and People to Collaborate
However, some parties view this Perpres favourably. In personal interviews with the author, BNPT spokesman Brig. Gen. Pol Eddy Hartono shared that community involvement is important for early detection of violent extremist groups and acts of terrorism in respective neighbourhoods, which in turn can help the government mitigate these threats. Eddy, who is also Director of Law Enforcement at BNPT, revealed several specific characteristics of such individuals or groups, based on many prior cases, including a closed attitude and not interacting with the community, perceive that their beliefs and actions are in accordance to the one and only truth, and not agreeing with the state ideology known as Pancasila.
These characteristics aligned with the author’s observations of Islamic State (IS) supporters’ activities on social media (Instagram, Facebook) and a WhatsApp group over recent years. These observations include allowing and supporting violent jihad, orienting towards violent radical clerics such as Aman Abdurrahman and Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, rejecting the concept of democracy and Pancasila, and hostility towards the government and security forces.
Eddy added that BNPT will later enhance the Community Policing programme, known as Polmas, an existing programme based on the Regulation of the Head of the National Police Number 3 of 2015. A collaborative programme between the police and the community, it aims to detect and identify security problems in the neighbourhood and to find their solutions.
Similarly, National Police Inspector Gen. Argo Yuwono stated that all parties need to “think positively” about the signing of the Perpres intended for national security and progress. Under this new regulation, the public can also monitor the performance of the government, including the police, in implementing this regulation because the results of their evaluation and achievements will be publicly available. This is emphasized in Article 7 paragraph (3) which requires the publishing of all reports on the achievement of implementation and results of evaluation as a form of public accountability.
The religious freedom watchdog Wahid Foundation sees the establishment of the RAN PE as a step forward in mitigating violent radicalism. Its director Yenny Wahid, in a personal interview with the author, highlighted that the factors and triggers of violent extremism are not singular that it is almost impossible to overcome them with only a security approach (hard approach). There needs to be a soft approach such as humanitarian, religious and educational approaches, in which civil society can play a large role. Therefore, there needs to be rules that facilitate this synergy between the government and community actors. This is where RAN PE comes into play. Moreover, the community is the one who knows best about the things that happen in the neighbourhood where they live.
Yenny, however, warned that the framework for implementing the Perpres must be prepared as clearly as possible and promulgated widely to all stakeholders to avoid misunderstandings. The principle of transparency and accountability which is emphasized in Article 7 paragraph (3) is an important element in this regulation so that the public can participate in monitoring and evaluating its implementation.
