Jakarta/Brussels, 7 July 2008: An Indonesian government decree restricting activities of the Ahmadiyah sect demonstrates how hardline Islamic groups, which have little political support, have been able to use classic civil society advocacy techniques to influence government policy.

Indonesia: Implications of the Ahmadiyah Decree,* the latest briefing from the International Crisis Group, examines the factors leading to government action on 9 June against a sect whose members have lived in the country since 1925. They include systematic lobbying of the bureaucracy over the last five years for action against Ahmadiyah; the search by hardline groups including Hizb ut-Tahrir for issues that would gain them sympathy and help expand membership; the unprecedented influence under the Yudhoyono government of the Indonesian Islamic Scholars Council (Majelis Ulama Indonesia, MUI); and political manoeuvring related to national and local elections.

“One official told us that this was not about freedom of religion but about law and order – without a decree, social unrest would increase”, says John Virgoe, South East Asia Project Director. “But the prospects of unrest have in fact increased because of the way in which hardline groups have worked the issue both at the grassroots and top levels of government. Having won this victory, they’ll look for others”.

The briefing looks at the role of several groups particularly active in pressing for a ban on Ahmadiyah over the last two years. One of the most important is Hizb ut-Tahrir Indonesia (HTI), working within a broader coalition, Forum Ummat Islam (FUI), formed in 2005, with a senior HTI official as secretary general. It has led mass demonstrations in support of an anti-pornography bill, against deviant sects, in support of a ban on Ahmadiyah and against fuel price hikes. HTI provides the strategic thinking; the muscle power is provided by the Islamic Defenders Front (Front Pembela Islam, FPI) whose members often serve as the security guards for FUI demonstrations. This brings HTI, whose members eschew violence, into an alliance with a group known for thuggish attacks on casinos, bars and nightclubs as well as on “unauthorised” Christian churches and Ahmadiyah mosques and schools.

FUI in turn has a direct line into MUI, whose influence has grown under the Yudhoyono government. While the ulama council is supposed to be broadly representative, the most active members of the executive board are often the most conservative, including several from organisations represented in FUI. Those in turn have shown themselves more adept than other groups in developing strategies, building networks and lobbying officials to bring about change – everything, in short, that civil society is supposed to do in a democracy.

“The Yudhoyono government made a serious error in 2005 by inviting MUI to help shape policy”, says Sidney Jones, Crisis Group Senior Adviser. “It opened the door for hardline groups to press for greater state intervention to define orthodoxy and legislate morality”.