NEWS

Regulating Worships: Policy Evaluation of Joint Ministerial Decrees (PBM) of 2006 for the Right to FoRB in Indonesia

16 July 2024

Hongsok Lee

The topic of the Wednesday Forum on June 5, 2024, was related to the policy of the establishment of houses of worship. Adinda Tenriangke Muchtar, a presenter at the forum, is the Executive Director of The Indonesian Institute (TII). She completed her PhD in Development Studies at Victoria University of Wellington through the New Zealand Scholarship Program in 2017. She is also a political and public policy analyst working on issues related to democracy and good governance. The Indonesia Institute, which she leads, is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit public policy research center. It was officially founded on October 21, 2004, by a dynamic group of young activists and intellectuals. The Indonesia Institute's scope of research and public policy analysis covers the fields of economics, social issues, politics, and law. To fulfill its vision and mission, The Indonesia Institute strives to contribute to public policy development through several activities, including research and public education.

The research presented at the forum focuses on the implementation of the PBM 2006 as it relates to the requirement to establish houses of worship. As a multi-religious country with diverse ethnicities, religions, races, and cultures, Indonesia frequently experiences interfaith conflicts, especially to the establishment of houses of worship. It is based on qualitative research through document analysis and semi-structured in-depth interviews with relevant informants. It was conducted by the Indonesia Institute from November 2023 to February 2024 and makes recommendations to facilitate policies for the establishment of places of worship to realize freedom of religion or belief in Indonesia.

Six findings emerged from the research. First, the issuance of permits to establish houses of worship is inevitably complicated by the interplay of different interests. Second, the benefits derived from the PBM 2006 are mainly formal in nature, and the regulation creates difficulties and obstacles to the fulfillment of the right to freedom of religion or belief. Third, many of the requirements of the regulation do not change the conditions for adherents of religious minorities who wish to establish houses of worship and tend to be discriminatory. Fourth, there is a lack of government accountability and the interpretation and implementation of interfaith harmony policies varies from region to region. Fifth, some police and military personnel tend to side with the majority and ignore the opinions of minority groups rather than solve problems, exacerbating conflicts. Sixth, FKUB (Interfaith Harmony Forums) utilized in the policy have yet to be established in 14 districts across four provinces, and lack of office space is also a problem.  

According to the presenter, environmental policy factors influence policy implementation. Referring to the Grindle policy evaluation concept, the research team analyzed the context of PBM 2006 policy implementation as follows. First, the inaccuracy of the FKUB's composition in establishing houses of worship creates a bias towards the major religion, and there is a lack of capacity and knowledge about the importance of tolerance among its members. There are still differences in interpretation of the PBM 2006, as well as a lack of synergy between relevant ministries. Second, local government policies tend to be indecisive and intolerant, especially when faced with pressure from civil society organizations, and the process of obtaining permits to establish houses of worship is complex. In many regions, the implementation of PBM 2006 is still hampered by communication and coordination issues, including in resolving disputes. Third, while requirements for houses of worship are generally complied with by policy implementers, implementation depends on the specific circumstances of each case. Lack of public understanding of religious diversity influences the desire for exclusive houses of worship, which can trigger arrogance in the majority. Therefore, when addressing the issue of permits to establish houses of worship, it is important to improve social awareness of religion and faith practices through a social and cultural approach, and subsequently an institutional approach.

The study concludes with a single sentence, "The importance of promoting changes in the requirements for the construction of houses of worship and mechanisms for dispute resolution  related to the construction of houses of worship," and the research team makes the following recommendations. 1. revise regulations on requirements for permits to establish houses of worship that are discriminatory and open to multiple interpretations; 2. establish a comprehensive dispute resolution mechanism capable of producing binding results; 3. strengthen the human rights perspective of police and military personnel in conflicts involving the establishment of houses of worship; 4. promote a contextualized interpretation and implementation of the 2006 PBM based on the implementation and protection of the right to freedom of religion or belief; 5. Raise public awareness of diversity, harmony, and tolerance of religions and beliefs; 6. Optimize FKUB performance through adequate resourcing; and 7. Propose to undertake multilateral cooperation to support the implementation of rights and protection of freedoms related to the establishment of houses of worship.