Wax and Wane of the Indonesian Women
The Power of Discourse and The Discourse for Power
Khristianto
Introduction
The woman stand in public is not only questioned by religion institution. History has shown in real evidences that female is really the marginal and seen just to be the male’s subordinates. The fight against the male domination has long encountered the barriers of social rules. As stated in Udasmoro and Nurwidyohening (2007:148), the woman, since the beginning, has been put in the domestic areas (being a nature), while the man is regarded as the agents of the culture, who works to think, create and apply the properties of the public domain. This can be seen from the evidences of negative views about the woman. The woman is valued lower than man. Quoting Jean Delameau, the writers point out that in some period of time, the western culture had viewed the woman as the source of the problem, the trouble makers, or the common cause of social problems.
As we turn to the history of human creation, genesis, we will find the similar ideas. The fall of Adam from Heaven is of the woman factor. Eve, his spouse, persuaded him to follow what devil (or snake) asked. Adam and Eve took the forbidden fruit and God finally ordered both to get out from the place. It is the original sin, which was then followed by first murder. This was also done by man because of the woman reason. The stimatization of the different sex by the male continues to the eras of philosphers positioning the woman in the negative stand. In this postmodern period, the female is still the questionable human being—their capability is frequently put in doubt just because the fact that they have a different sex. This case occurred in Indonesia. Megawati had to take a curving road to reach her presidency, in spite of the victory her party won. The reality of her sex forced her to face the strong barrier in our democratic country in which people must judge the person according to what he or she does, not to who he or she is. It doesn’t mean to ignore other possible factors, but the woman issue is the most prominent behind the reason of her refusal for president at that time.
The refusal was made of the discourses by the master. Who is the master of discourse? Khak (2007) said that they are the capital owners and the officials og the legislatives and the executives. The capital owners put their power of the discourse through the products they manufacture and market to the public. The legislatives and the executives manifest their hold on the language in the forms of the rules, the regulations, and the law. They also poured down their disourse power in the media in which they are the source of information for the public. By the language they use, they influence the public on how to speak and express ideas. They are models for the public in using a language. In this sense of model, the celebrities are very contagious to their fans.
Through the language, the disourse owner also manages and control others to have a certain view, behave in a some manner, to do like what he or she wants. That is why language can be the useful method to analyze and to constitute an ideology (Djatmika and Rarastesa, 2007: 15). The approach applied to search for the meaning of discourse here is the critical discourse analysis (Fairclough: 1997). Fairclough stated that the discourse analysis, including media discourse, necessarily involves two alternating focuses: communicative events and the order of discourse. The focus for the objective of the study is just the communicative event. Further, Fairclough explained that there are three aspects of any communicative event, i.e. text, discourse practice, and sociocultural practice. And the language instrument analysis will be taken through the systemic functional grammar (Halliday: 1987), especially the labelling (cf. Djatmika and Rarastesa: 2007). They said that the labelling is the tool to see the ideology effectively. Labelling used by the subject accurately indicates the ideology.
The result of analysis is then interpreted critically with Fairclough view, and discussed in terms of theory of power and discourse proposed by Foucault (Power/Knowledge). The source of data is the news and the opinion of the media collected from the Internet. They are all about the issue of woman presidency surrounding the general election in 1998.
Discourse and Power
Hidayat (2004:236) elaborated Foucault’s view on the relation between the discourse and knowledge. The knowledge produce a power as power results in knowledge. The power will only exist by the knowledge, and the knowlodge will never come without power. There is a mutual co-existency among the both. Further, Foucault argues that the power is just negative and repressive (in the form of prohibition and obligation) as formulated in the juridical concpets of power. The power runs in positive and productive way. The implementation of power continuously creates knowledge, and the knowledge goes in time to produce the effects of knowledge. It is impossible the power can be run without knowlede, as it is the case for the knowledge to escape itself from power (Panimbang: 2006, Hasbullah: 2007). Hasbullah (2007) concludes that there is a functional relation between knowledge and power. The power is inclusive in the willing to know.
The perspective is just right with Foucault’s proposition about ’regime of truth’, like what Irvine (2005) implied the truth as an entity in this world can exist after it takes through hurdles, and it is a part of the power’s influence. Truth is related to the circular relation of the power system by which it is produced and defended. The effects of power include and extend the truth. Foucault sees the war and the competition in many disciplines in deciding the knowledge and the turth are just a form of power conflict, and not the scientific debate.
Green (1997) describes that each society has its own truth, the general politics of truth, i.e. the disocurses which accept and make it function to be the truth. Foucault believes that the discourse is the instrument and the effect of power, but discourse is also a hurdle, a contesting point, and the first step of the strategy to resist. Thus, the knowledge and the power constitute the “creation rule” of the truth. The existence and the quality of something in reality is just the product of the construction process in the form of discourses. The effect of the construction process is manifested through the artificial bordering to the discourse.
Discourse on Mega : Ulema’s Verdict on Woman President.
The biggest vote PDI Perjuangan won in the 2008 election did not automatically put Megawati as its candidate to be the president. The flow of religious disscourse countered the first woman candidate, and the flow was larger after her party’s victory, putting Mega in the first list to hold the power. It seemed that she would be the top at the time. As it was diclosed in the media.
seperti kita ketahui bahwa PDI-P yang menang di (kalau tidak salah) 12
Propinsi mengantongi 154 suara dengan asumsi solidnya dukungan PDIP terhadap capresnya sendiri ditambah utusan daerah yang setidaknya dari propinsi yang suaranya didominasi oleh orang orang PDI-P di DPRD tersebut hampir dapat dipastikan bahwa PDI-P akan mendapatkan tambahan 60 suara dari utusan daerah. jadi setidaknya sudah ada 214 suara yang di pegang PDI-P tidak termasuk kemungkinan dukungan oleh PNI SUPENI, PKP dan beberapa partai kecil lainnya serta utusan golongan maupun TNI dengan 39 suaranya.
http://www.library.ohiou.edu/indopubs/1999/08/31/0079.html
Some opponents, then, made use the fundamental issue to avoid Mega from the top list. The ulema verdict on the prohibition for woman to be a leader of state went fast and wide. The discourse came from the opposition faction in the house of representative. The declaration of the verdict was stated by Hamzah Haz, “Poros Tengah tak mungkin mencalonkan Megawati, karena sesuai fatwa ulama, menolak wanita jadi pemimpin. Ini bukan masalah gender, tapi hanya ingin melaksanakan fatwa ulama. Jangan tuduh kami isu gender dan agama” (http://www.minihub.org/siarlist/msg03314.html). This is obviously a religious claim to the tricks undertaken by a group of people in the representative body, who named themselves Poros Tengah. The statement implied that any person or party going against their stand will violate the God’s rules. History has clearly noted that the manouver is really potent. Megawati, a woman candidate, with the democratic and logical reason to be the president had to go under the blind man whose party was just on the sixth position of the election vote. She was, then, put in the insignificant second position as the compensation gift.
There were three important issues to keep Mega away from the presidency. First, the discourse quoting the verse of Koran saying that the man is to lead the woman, and not otherwise. It is interpreted that the woman has no right to be a chief for man. It is usually lined with the fact that woman cannot be the leader (imam) in the prays. In this logics, then, the woman is prohibited more to be a leader of the country. This is strengthened by the proposition of the prophet (hadist) saying that a country will destroy, if the people give the power to a woman. Mega, then, is impossible to be the president before Islamic rules to which the majority of Indonesian people adhere. It means Mega was just born not to be a president because of her sex. In this religious proposition, any woman in whatever condition cannot be a president.
Besides those two discourses resulting in the same conclusion, another is about the questioning of Megawati’s religion. The point is that it posed if Mega was moslem or not. This is realized in the appearance of her picture in the media showing she practiced a ritual in another religion. The validity of the photograph is of course debatable. This completes a package of discourses to hinder Mega from the president list, despite the fact that she was democratically the most deserved person to be incharged.
The flow of religious proposition against woman president and the doubt of her Islamic religion is a stigmatization. The labelling of “woman must be led by man, and not otherwise” and the association of “woman leader” to “the destruction” are a deviation of reality to make the contraproductive effect to the stand of Mega as the candidate for the presidency. Another negative labelling for Mega is of course the floating idea about the religion Mega holds. The seemingly charge that Mega is not moslem is a real character assassination for her in the country with moslems as the majority. Her moslem supporters may even draw their votes, as they know about the fact. This is just a real blow for Mega, sending to the canvas, if it is boxing fight.
While, the very positive branding is tagged on the discourse creator, Poros Tengah (central axis). With its etymology, the name has wide arrays of positivity. Seen from the background of the constuting parties, the name are just another word for moslem, as stated in the Islamic proposition that moslem is the moderate people (ummatan wasyathan-umat yang berada ditengah diantara dua ekstrim). This is very potential naming regarding to the religioun-related discourses they produce to go against Mega.
This creative terms also implies the condition at the time. Hamzah has declared that “Untuk itu dinamakan sebagai Poros Tengah, yakni mengambil jarak dari kubu yang saat ini tengah bertarung merebut kursi kepresidenan, yakni kubu PDI-P yang mencalonkan Megawati dan partai Golkar yang mencalonkan Habibie sebagai presiden” . The faction is like the moderating brigde to link the two oppossing parties. Again, the brigding function puts this faction in a noble stand. It seems the group just fights for the wisdom and fairness to ensure the smooth run for the country.
The negativizing system targeted to Mega as the strongest candidate for presidency at the time, and the positive label on the issuer of the discourses is not more other than a sort of representation process. The representation is determined by the ideology, for like what Irvine (2005) says that “ideology is …a function of disourse.” What considered right or wrong is just a matter of the underlying interests. Three negative labels associated to Mega at that time seem to be just right. It is like the true reflection of the reality.
In fact, the discources has blurred the truth. It has reduced, violated and deconstructed the realities about the aspects of Mega for the president. The declaration of the proscribed female president is frequently contested by the arguments taken from the same verse by presenting it in a complete version. The verse’s full meaning is in contrast to the clipped version. There is reduction and violation to the true meaning of the verse. The same case is also found in the second discourse where the arguments to resist is by revealing the reason behind the prophet’s proposition. It means the representation done by the discourses has corrupted the reality.
The third issue about Mega’s religion is another corruption. It has deconstructed the true reality. Without some real evidence, the issue has spread and seems to represent the right thing. The later evidences have convincingly proved that Mega is moslem, and this isactually the common belief of the people. However, the emerging of the issue has put the public in doubt—the condition which is then abused effectively by Poros Tengah. Thus, the subject of the discourse is the ultimate judge to determine what’s right or wrong, who’s guilty or freed—the decision here is again about the matters of interests.
Another Face of Reality
The different condision reveals after some time Gus Dur led the country. Those refusing Mega turned sharply and expected her to replace the incumbent leader. Poros Tengah, then, was changed into another label, Poros Penyelamat Bangsa (the Axis of Nation Rescuer). This group once again played the same card to lift Mega into her presidency, and forced Gus Dur to resign because he was regarded to be incapable to manage the government.
The waves of demonstration go to tide preceeded Gus Dur resign. We must still remember how the public smiled and laugh a fool to see their president in shorts went out from his palace to expel the demonstarting student out of his sight. For the public in general, He is a controversioal top figure whose many statements put the public mind in puzzled. Among them is his arguments against MUI’s (Indonesian Ulema Board) verdicts about a prohibited product.
The discourses to promote Mega as the new president are started with the unofficial meeting conducted by the elites of big parties at the time. As it is reported by Irawan (2001) “pernyataan dari motor penggerak Poros Tengah, Amien Rais yang mengatakan bahwa pertemuan silahturahmi itu telah menghasilkan ”unspoken conclusion” (kesimpulan yang tak dikatakan) tentang suksesi kepemimpinan dan mempersiapkan masyarakat untuk menerima bergulirnya suksesi tersebut.” Implicitly, it is obvious that the discussion done by the Poros Tengah and the parts of big parties had concluded that the solution of the problems in the country was to reform the leader. There are many political statements as the legitimatization to force Gus Dur to resign. This paper will only focus on the statement based on the Islamic proposition to support Mega to come into the palace.
The following is the religion-based statement taken in the news issued in www.Indo-News.com. which much quoted the acuses of Amien Rais.
"Saya kira dalam Syariat Islam selalu ada fleksibilitas tetapi yang lebih dari itu, dalam pandangan Islam lelaki atau perempuan sederajat, persis sama," katanya.
"Setahu saya dulu, sebagian ulama PPP memang membuat fatwa seperti itu. Tetapi kata Pak Hamzah Haz sendiri, ulama yang sama telah melihat bahwa ternyata dalam keadaan darurat tidak ada salahnya samasekali,"
"Jadi kalau ada yang menyatakan perempuan tidak boleh jadi lurah, bupati atau Presiden maka ia menantang nats Al-quran," (www.Indo-News.com)
There are some significant key words contained in the statements above: fleksibilitas (flexibility), keadaan darurat (emergency state), and menantang Al-qur’an. Flexibility is indeed another facet of some religious rules in Islam, for exaple how the obligation to take a fasting during a month may change by the condition of a subject. The point here is the flexibility is proposed as the instrument of dicourse to win the political card. The flexibility is made use to be in right with their inconsistent stance, and it is even contrasting attitude to the possibility of woman leading a state. The tagging of “flexible” is a positive labelling, which impressed to associate with the religious rules, while in fact it is attached to their inconsistency.
The flexibility is taken into option for a condition which was believed to be an emergency. The state of emergency is again another kind of imbalance representation. The state of ‘emergency’ is actually still under many questions. The labelling of ‘emergency’ to the condition of state at the time is really debatable: is it true to the definition declared in any working documents or laws of the country? In concluding so, what kind of perspectives applies to judge, and who are the subjects behind the view? However, the questionable conclusion then becomes the truth of the reality. The Foucault’s proposition about the regime of truth is obviously proved here. The truth is just a quality which can be reconstructed in any way for the shake of power’s interests.
The third label, to challenge the Koran, or in other words to go agains the Islamic rule which is now associated to the action of prohibiting a woman to be the president is a real paradox to the propositions to refuse Mega at first time. The question is why this knowledge did not come at the time as Mega stepped into her presidency. This is actually just the reduced part of the religious propostion concealed by the Poros Tengah to construct the reality as they wanted. It is actually an unfair and violated representation.
The later positive labelling of woman presidency, Megawati, is not other than a reconstruction of discourse to defend and to resist the power. The discourse here is the point of contestation among the political parties as their political interests perceived to be not well accomodated by the incumbent power. The religious propositions in the grey area become the commodities viable to any recharge and discharge relative to any stand the subject takes. The remodification of the religious rules is to convince that their later tricks are based on the religious as well, that it is not a sinful thing. In other words, the strategy is also another form of the implementation of God’s commands.
Conclusion
Based on the discussion above, the discourse about the woman presidency is actually about the political interests. Poros Tengah, as the agents, made use (abused) the religious propositions to refuse Megawati as the president. Later on, the same agent took other religious proposition to open widely the possibility of woman to be the president. The reconstruction of discourses is to produce the truth about the reality in the form of representation which is selected according to what interest held by the agents. The creation of corrupted truth to be the real truth is aimed at claiming and resisting the power. The agents construct and reconstruct the face of reality to keep their power.
Bibliography
Djatmika, Rarastesa, Zeta. 2007. Penulisan Berita tetang Wanita dan Pria Penjahat. Leksika vol.1, no.1. Pebruari 2007. Purwokerto: FS-UMP..
Fairclough. 1997. Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings (Colin Gordon edit.). Sussex: The Harvester Press.
Halliday. 1987. Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Edward Arnolds.
Hidayat, Rachmad. 2004. Ilmu yang Seksis: Feminisme dan Perlawanan Terhadap Teori Sosial Maskulin. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Jendela.
Khak, M. Abdul. 2007. Bahasa Penguasa dan Penguasa Bahasa. Metalingua vol.5. no.1, Desember 2007. Bandung: Balai Bahasa Bandung.
Udasmoro, Wening and Nurwidyohening, Wiwid. 2006. Seksisme dalam Bahasa Perancis: Konstruksi Sosio-Historis dan Politis (Humaniora, Juni 2006). Yogyakarta: FIB, UGM.
Internet Resources
Irawan, Andi. 2001. Presiden Wanita: Mengapa Tidak (Republika, 17 Maret 2001). http://andiirawan.com/2008/03/20/presiden-wanita-mengapa-tidak/
Kompas. 2001. Amien: Poros Tengah Tulus Mendukung Megawati. Kompas.com. http://www.Indo-News.com/
Panimbang, Fahmi. 2006. Teori Kuasa. www.blogger.com diakses pada 20 Desember 2007.
http://www.library.ohiou.edu/indopubs/1999/08/31/0079.html
(http://www.minihub.org/siarlist/msg03314.html).
(D&R, 1999: 58) http://jurnalis.wordpress.com/1999/08/23/poros-tengah-setelah-pkb-dan-pdip-besanan/
The Power of Discourse and The Discourse for Power
Khristianto
Introduction
The woman stand in public is not only questioned by religion institution. History has shown in real evidences that female is really the marginal and seen just to be the male’s subordinates. The fight against the male domination has long encountered the barriers of social rules. As stated in Udasmoro and Nurwidyohening (2007:148), the woman, since the beginning, has been put in the domestic areas (being a nature), while the man is regarded as the agents of the culture, who works to think, create and apply the properties of the public domain. This can be seen from the evidences of negative views about the woman. The woman is valued lower than man. Quoting Jean Delameau, the writers point out that in some period of time, the western culture had viewed the woman as the source of the problem, the trouble makers, or the common cause of social problems.
As we turn to the history of human creation, genesis, we will find the similar ideas. The fall of Adam from Heaven is of the woman factor. Eve, his spouse, persuaded him to follow what devil (or snake) asked. Adam and Eve took the forbidden fruit and God finally ordered both to get out from the place. It is the original sin, which was then followed by first murder. This was also done by man because of the woman reason. The stimatization of the different sex by the male continues to the eras of philosphers positioning the woman in the negative stand. In this postmodern period, the female is still the questionable human being—their capability is frequently put in doubt just because the fact that they have a different sex. This case occurred in Indonesia. Megawati had to take a curving road to reach her presidency, in spite of the victory her party won. The reality of her sex forced her to face the strong barrier in our democratic country in which people must judge the person according to what he or she does, not to who he or she is. It doesn’t mean to ignore other possible factors, but the woman issue is the most prominent behind the reason of her refusal for president at that time.
The refusal was made of the discourses by the master. Who is the master of discourse? Khak (2007) said that they are the capital owners and the officials og the legislatives and the executives. The capital owners put their power of the discourse through the products they manufacture and market to the public. The legislatives and the executives manifest their hold on the language in the forms of the rules, the regulations, and the law. They also poured down their disourse power in the media in which they are the source of information for the public. By the language they use, they influence the public on how to speak and express ideas. They are models for the public in using a language. In this sense of model, the celebrities are very contagious to their fans.
Through the language, the disourse owner also manages and control others to have a certain view, behave in a some manner, to do like what he or she wants. That is why language can be the useful method to analyze and to constitute an ideology (Djatmika and Rarastesa, 2007: 15). The approach applied to search for the meaning of discourse here is the critical discourse analysis (Fairclough: 1997). Fairclough stated that the discourse analysis, including media discourse, necessarily involves two alternating focuses: communicative events and the order of discourse. The focus for the objective of the study is just the communicative event. Further, Fairclough explained that there are three aspects of any communicative event, i.e. text, discourse practice, and sociocultural practice. And the language instrument analysis will be taken through the systemic functional grammar (Halliday: 1987), especially the labelling (cf. Djatmika and Rarastesa: 2007). They said that the labelling is the tool to see the ideology effectively. Labelling used by the subject accurately indicates the ideology.
The result of analysis is then interpreted critically with Fairclough view, and discussed in terms of theory of power and discourse proposed by Foucault (Power/Knowledge). The source of data is the news and the opinion of the media collected from the Internet. They are all about the issue of woman presidency surrounding the general election in 1998.
Discourse and Power
Hidayat (2004:236) elaborated Foucault’s view on the relation between the discourse and knowledge. The knowledge produce a power as power results in knowledge. The power will only exist by the knowledge, and the knowlodge will never come without power. There is a mutual co-existency among the both. Further, Foucault argues that the power is just negative and repressive (in the form of prohibition and obligation) as formulated in the juridical concpets of power. The power runs in positive and productive way. The implementation of power continuously creates knowledge, and the knowledge goes in time to produce the effects of knowledge. It is impossible the power can be run without knowlede, as it is the case for the knowledge to escape itself from power (Panimbang: 2006, Hasbullah: 2007). Hasbullah (2007) concludes that there is a functional relation between knowledge and power. The power is inclusive in the willing to know.
The perspective is just right with Foucault’s proposition about ’regime of truth’, like what Irvine (2005) implied the truth as an entity in this world can exist after it takes through hurdles, and it is a part of the power’s influence. Truth is related to the circular relation of the power system by which it is produced and defended. The effects of power include and extend the truth. Foucault sees the war and the competition in many disciplines in deciding the knowledge and the turth are just a form of power conflict, and not the scientific debate.
Green (1997) describes that each society has its own truth, the general politics of truth, i.e. the disocurses which accept and make it function to be the truth. Foucault believes that the discourse is the instrument and the effect of power, but discourse is also a hurdle, a contesting point, and the first step of the strategy to resist. Thus, the knowledge and the power constitute the “creation rule” of the truth. The existence and the quality of something in reality is just the product of the construction process in the form of discourses. The effect of the construction process is manifested through the artificial bordering to the discourse.
Discourse on Mega : Ulema’s Verdict on Woman President.
The biggest vote PDI Perjuangan won in the 2008 election did not automatically put Megawati as its candidate to be the president. The flow of religious disscourse countered the first woman candidate, and the flow was larger after her party’s victory, putting Mega in the first list to hold the power. It seemed that she would be the top at the time. As it was diclosed in the media.
seperti kita ketahui bahwa PDI-P yang menang di (kalau tidak salah) 12
Propinsi mengantongi 154 suara dengan asumsi solidnya dukungan PDIP terhadap capresnya sendiri ditambah utusan daerah yang setidaknya dari propinsi yang suaranya didominasi oleh orang orang PDI-P di DPRD tersebut hampir dapat dipastikan bahwa PDI-P akan mendapatkan tambahan 60 suara dari utusan daerah. jadi setidaknya sudah ada 214 suara yang di pegang PDI-P tidak termasuk kemungkinan dukungan oleh PNI SUPENI, PKP dan beberapa partai kecil lainnya serta utusan golongan maupun TNI dengan 39 suaranya.
http://www.library.ohiou.edu/indopubs/1999/08/31/0079.html
Some opponents, then, made use the fundamental issue to avoid Mega from the top list. The ulema verdict on the prohibition for woman to be a leader of state went fast and wide. The discourse came from the opposition faction in the house of representative. The declaration of the verdict was stated by Hamzah Haz, “Poros Tengah tak mungkin mencalonkan Megawati, karena sesuai fatwa ulama, menolak wanita jadi pemimpin. Ini bukan masalah gender, tapi hanya ingin melaksanakan fatwa ulama. Jangan tuduh kami isu gender dan agama” (http://www.minihub.org/siarlist/msg03314.html). This is obviously a religious claim to the tricks undertaken by a group of people in the representative body, who named themselves Poros Tengah. The statement implied that any person or party going against their stand will violate the God’s rules. History has clearly noted that the manouver is really potent. Megawati, a woman candidate, with the democratic and logical reason to be the president had to go under the blind man whose party was just on the sixth position of the election vote. She was, then, put in the insignificant second position as the compensation gift.
There were three important issues to keep Mega away from the presidency. First, the discourse quoting the verse of Koran saying that the man is to lead the woman, and not otherwise. It is interpreted that the woman has no right to be a chief for man. It is usually lined with the fact that woman cannot be the leader (imam) in the prays. In this logics, then, the woman is prohibited more to be a leader of the country. This is strengthened by the proposition of the prophet (hadist) saying that a country will destroy, if the people give the power to a woman. Mega, then, is impossible to be the president before Islamic rules to which the majority of Indonesian people adhere. It means Mega was just born not to be a president because of her sex. In this religious proposition, any woman in whatever condition cannot be a president.
Besides those two discourses resulting in the same conclusion, another is about the questioning of Megawati’s religion. The point is that it posed if Mega was moslem or not. This is realized in the appearance of her picture in the media showing she practiced a ritual in another religion. The validity of the photograph is of course debatable. This completes a package of discourses to hinder Mega from the president list, despite the fact that she was democratically the most deserved person to be incharged.
The flow of religious proposition against woman president and the doubt of her Islamic religion is a stigmatization. The labelling of “woman must be led by man, and not otherwise” and the association of “woman leader” to “the destruction” are a deviation of reality to make the contraproductive effect to the stand of Mega as the candidate for the presidency. Another negative labelling for Mega is of course the floating idea about the religion Mega holds. The seemingly charge that Mega is not moslem is a real character assassination for her in the country with moslems as the majority. Her moslem supporters may even draw their votes, as they know about the fact. This is just a real blow for Mega, sending to the canvas, if it is boxing fight.
While, the very positive branding is tagged on the discourse creator, Poros Tengah (central axis). With its etymology, the name has wide arrays of positivity. Seen from the background of the constuting parties, the name are just another word for moslem, as stated in the Islamic proposition that moslem is the moderate people (ummatan wasyathan-umat yang berada ditengah diantara dua ekstrim). This is very potential naming regarding to the religioun-related discourses they produce to go against Mega.
This creative terms also implies the condition at the time. Hamzah has declared that “Untuk itu dinamakan sebagai Poros Tengah, yakni mengambil jarak dari kubu yang saat ini tengah bertarung merebut kursi kepresidenan, yakni kubu PDI-P yang mencalonkan Megawati dan partai Golkar yang mencalonkan Habibie sebagai presiden” . The faction is like the moderating brigde to link the two oppossing parties. Again, the brigding function puts this faction in a noble stand. It seems the group just fights for the wisdom and fairness to ensure the smooth run for the country.
The negativizing system targeted to Mega as the strongest candidate for presidency at the time, and the positive label on the issuer of the discourses is not more other than a sort of representation process. The representation is determined by the ideology, for like what Irvine (2005) says that “ideology is …a function of disourse.” What considered right or wrong is just a matter of the underlying interests. Three negative labels associated to Mega at that time seem to be just right. It is like the true reflection of the reality.
In fact, the discources has blurred the truth. It has reduced, violated and deconstructed the realities about the aspects of Mega for the president. The declaration of the proscribed female president is frequently contested by the arguments taken from the same verse by presenting it in a complete version. The verse’s full meaning is in contrast to the clipped version. There is reduction and violation to the true meaning of the verse. The same case is also found in the second discourse where the arguments to resist is by revealing the reason behind the prophet’s proposition. It means the representation done by the discourses has corrupted the reality.
The third issue about Mega’s religion is another corruption. It has deconstructed the true reality. Without some real evidence, the issue has spread and seems to represent the right thing. The later evidences have convincingly proved that Mega is moslem, and this isactually the common belief of the people. However, the emerging of the issue has put the public in doubt—the condition which is then abused effectively by Poros Tengah. Thus, the subject of the discourse is the ultimate judge to determine what’s right or wrong, who’s guilty or freed—the decision here is again about the matters of interests.
Another Face of Reality
The different condision reveals after some time Gus Dur led the country. Those refusing Mega turned sharply and expected her to replace the incumbent leader. Poros Tengah, then, was changed into another label, Poros Penyelamat Bangsa (the Axis of Nation Rescuer). This group once again played the same card to lift Mega into her presidency, and forced Gus Dur to resign because he was regarded to be incapable to manage the government.
The waves of demonstration go to tide preceeded Gus Dur resign. We must still remember how the public smiled and laugh a fool to see their president in shorts went out from his palace to expel the demonstarting student out of his sight. For the public in general, He is a controversioal top figure whose many statements put the public mind in puzzled. Among them is his arguments against MUI’s (Indonesian Ulema Board) verdicts about a prohibited product.
The discourses to promote Mega as the new president are started with the unofficial meeting conducted by the elites of big parties at the time. As it is reported by Irawan (2001) “pernyataan dari motor penggerak Poros Tengah, Amien Rais yang mengatakan bahwa pertemuan silahturahmi itu telah menghasilkan ”unspoken conclusion” (kesimpulan yang tak dikatakan) tentang suksesi kepemimpinan dan mempersiapkan masyarakat untuk menerima bergulirnya suksesi tersebut.” Implicitly, it is obvious that the discussion done by the Poros Tengah and the parts of big parties had concluded that the solution of the problems in the country was to reform the leader. There are many political statements as the legitimatization to force Gus Dur to resign. This paper will only focus on the statement based on the Islamic proposition to support Mega to come into the palace.
The following is the religion-based statement taken in the news issued in www.Indo-News.com. which much quoted the acuses of Amien Rais.
"Saya kira dalam Syariat Islam selalu ada fleksibilitas tetapi yang lebih dari itu, dalam pandangan Islam lelaki atau perempuan sederajat, persis sama," katanya.
"Setahu saya dulu, sebagian ulama PPP memang membuat fatwa seperti itu. Tetapi kata Pak Hamzah Haz sendiri, ulama yang sama telah melihat bahwa ternyata dalam keadaan darurat tidak ada salahnya samasekali,"
"Jadi kalau ada yang menyatakan perempuan tidak boleh jadi lurah, bupati atau Presiden maka ia menantang nats Al-quran," (www.Indo-News.com)
There are some significant key words contained in the statements above: fleksibilitas (flexibility), keadaan darurat (emergency state), and menantang Al-qur’an. Flexibility is indeed another facet of some religious rules in Islam, for exaple how the obligation to take a fasting during a month may change by the condition of a subject. The point here is the flexibility is proposed as the instrument of dicourse to win the political card. The flexibility is made use to be in right with their inconsistent stance, and it is even contrasting attitude to the possibility of woman leading a state. The tagging of “flexible” is a positive labelling, which impressed to associate with the religious rules, while in fact it is attached to their inconsistency.
The flexibility is taken into option for a condition which was believed to be an emergency. The state of emergency is again another kind of imbalance representation. The state of ‘emergency’ is actually still under many questions. The labelling of ‘emergency’ to the condition of state at the time is really debatable: is it true to the definition declared in any working documents or laws of the country? In concluding so, what kind of perspectives applies to judge, and who are the subjects behind the view? However, the questionable conclusion then becomes the truth of the reality. The Foucault’s proposition about the regime of truth is obviously proved here. The truth is just a quality which can be reconstructed in any way for the shake of power’s interests.
The third label, to challenge the Koran, or in other words to go agains the Islamic rule which is now associated to the action of prohibiting a woman to be the president is a real paradox to the propositions to refuse Mega at first time. The question is why this knowledge did not come at the time as Mega stepped into her presidency. This is actually just the reduced part of the religious propostion concealed by the Poros Tengah to construct the reality as they wanted. It is actually an unfair and violated representation.
The later positive labelling of woman presidency, Megawati, is not other than a reconstruction of discourse to defend and to resist the power. The discourse here is the point of contestation among the political parties as their political interests perceived to be not well accomodated by the incumbent power. The religious propositions in the grey area become the commodities viable to any recharge and discharge relative to any stand the subject takes. The remodification of the religious rules is to convince that their later tricks are based on the religious as well, that it is not a sinful thing. In other words, the strategy is also another form of the implementation of God’s commands.
Conclusion
Based on the discussion above, the discourse about the woman presidency is actually about the political interests. Poros Tengah, as the agents, made use (abused) the religious propositions to refuse Megawati as the president. Later on, the same agent took other religious proposition to open widely the possibility of woman to be the president. The reconstruction of discourses is to produce the truth about the reality in the form of representation which is selected according to what interest held by the agents. The creation of corrupted truth to be the real truth is aimed at claiming and resisting the power. The agents construct and reconstruct the face of reality to keep their power.
Bibliography
Djatmika, Rarastesa, Zeta. 2007. Penulisan Berita tetang Wanita dan Pria Penjahat. Leksika vol.1, no.1. Pebruari 2007. Purwokerto: FS-UMP..
Fairclough. 1997. Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings (Colin Gordon edit.). Sussex: The Harvester Press.
Halliday. 1987. Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Edward Arnolds.
Hidayat, Rachmad. 2004. Ilmu yang Seksis: Feminisme dan Perlawanan Terhadap Teori Sosial Maskulin. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Jendela.
Khak, M. Abdul. 2007. Bahasa Penguasa dan Penguasa Bahasa. Metalingua vol.5. no.1, Desember 2007. Bandung: Balai Bahasa Bandung.
Udasmoro, Wening and Nurwidyohening, Wiwid. 2006. Seksisme dalam Bahasa Perancis: Konstruksi Sosio-Historis dan Politis (Humaniora, Juni 2006). Yogyakarta: FIB, UGM.
Internet Resources
Irawan, Andi. 2001. Presiden Wanita: Mengapa Tidak (Republika, 17 Maret 2001). http://andiirawan.com/2008/03/20/presiden-wanita-mengapa-tidak/
Kompas. 2001. Amien: Poros Tengah Tulus Mendukung Megawati. Kompas.com. http://www.Indo-News.com/
Panimbang, Fahmi. 2006. Teori Kuasa. www.blogger.com diakses pada 20 Desember 2007.
http://www.library.ohiou.edu/indopubs/1999/08/31/0079.html
(http://www.minihub.org/siarlist/msg03314.html).
(D&R, 1999: 58) http://jurnalis.wordpress.com/1999/08/23/poros-tengah-setelah-pkb-dan-pdip-besanan/
i've seen urs...good blog i like seeing
BalasHapusbtw,my i have know ur hp number
Here is my phone:085227737495. I have another blog. www.cotefl.blogspot.com the articles are all about english teaching. check it up!
BalasHapus