In a democratic nation, civil liberties become a privileged right for its citizens. This implies that the rights to voice opinions, to associate, to practice religion, among others, are safeguarded by the state even if they oppose it (Amartya Sen, 1999). This is contrary to non-democratic states where civil liberties of citizens are highly restricted. Therefore, the emergence of the aforementioned groups is an implication of the democratic system.
Fundamentally, the Reform allowed equal participatory space for various societal groups (Beetham, 2005). This was facilitated by the revocation of Presidential Regulation (Perpres) Number 11 of 1963, which pertained to the Eradication of Subversive Activities. This regulation was among many others repealed during the Reform era. However, radical groups in opposition to the government emerged and flourished despite these changes.
Countering Radical Groups: Whose Responsibility?
Arbitrarily, akin to the polarized extremes of right-wing and left-wing ideologies, radical groups are deemed adversaries to moderate groups. Thus, it is assumed that moderate groups bear the significant responsibility of countering and opposing radical ideologies. However, this doesn’t intend to negate the role of the government as an agent of control over its citizens. The role of moderate groups is equally vital in the context of combating radical groups.
Moderate groups are acknowledged as entities that play a role in mitigating radicalism and provide education and information about moderate and inclusive values. Religious groups such as Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah operate within this corridor. Throughout Indonesia’s history, both groups have played a significant role in fostering unity and peace.
Yet, according to Azyumardi Azra, despite being the majority in this country, moderate groups tend to remain silent when confronting radical groups. In Azra’s terms, this phenomenon is referred to as the “silent majority.”