By Ben Geier
fortune: The racial fears and economic frustration surrounding Trump’s political momentum do not form in a vacuum. Here’s how the angry white tornado formed, and where it goes next.When the 2016 election is over—when the months of debates, nonsensical Tweets, and bizarre news appearances have faded into the annals of history—many will try to pinpoint the moment that best summarized the mood of the country in 2015 and 2016; the one event that encapsulated the emotions that have enveloped the American electorate as they watched nearly two dozen people try to succeed Barack Obama as president of the United States.Here’s one contender. During a Fox Business Network Republican debate in South Carolina in January, just a few weeks before the Iowa caucuses, moderators asked Donald Trump about South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union, where she cautioned voters from being drawn like moths to “the angriest voices.” Amid Trump’s usual bluster was a potent message that has resonated with his supporters:“I’m very angry because our country is being run horribly and I will gladly accept the mantle of anger. Our military is a disaster. Our healthcare is a horror show. Obamacare, we’re going to repeal it and replace it. We have no borders. Our vets are being treated horribly. Illegal immigration is beyond belief. Our country is being run by incompetent people. And yes, I am angry. And I won’t be angry when we fix it, but until we fix it, I’m very, very angry. And I say that to Nikki. So when Nikki said that, I wasn’t offended. She said the truth. One of your colleagues interviewed me. And said, well, she said you were angry and I said to myself, huh, she’s right. I’m not fighting that. I didn’t find it offensive at all. I’m angry because our country is a mess.”If anything, Donald Trump’s diverse range of backers are united by their anger. They’re angry at big companies for moving overseas and taking jobs with them. They’re angry at banks for offering predatory loans and not being there to help clean up the mess. They’re angry that they can’t seem to lead the middle class lives their parents and grandparents enjoyed.Trump has offered voters a simple way to channel that rage. He provides a litany of targets—immigrants, Muslims, refugees, Democrats—and he tells these people that their anger is okay, that it’s understandable, and that even if no one else with power is going to feel that anger alongside them, he will.We’ve seen this before, notes sociologist Michael Kimmel, who is the author of Angry White Men, which traces the paths of marginalized men who turn to racism, misogyny, and homophobia. Kimmel notes that Trump “represents a long tradition” of populist politicians using race and national identity to win supporters, from William Jennings Bryan to Huey Long. Trump also invokes the nostalgia that populism thrives on, the idea that things were much better “back then.”But this kind of anger doesn’t form in a vacuum. Here is how we got there.
America’s Face Is ChangingIn Trump’s first address as a political candidate—the one where he rode majestically down his golden elevator at Trump Tower in New York City and announced that he was running for President—the real estate mogul took aim at illegal immigrants from Mexico, stating plainly that those new arrivals brought crime with them and that many of them were rapists. Later, in the wake of terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernadino, Calif., Trump issued a press release advocating for a ban on Muslim entry to the United States.
“I’m watching this circus unfold on the Republican side and [seeing] the amount of permission that people are feeling finally to express the deep and abiding racism and rage,” Kimmel says.Trump’s focus on race has won him support from white supremacists, or “race realists,” as they refer to themselves. He got attention in the weeks leading up to his second place finish in the Iowa Caucuses when he retweeted a supporter with the handle “WhiteGenocideTM.” (“White genocide” is a term far-right Internet denizens use to describe the trend of increased immigration and multiculturalism in both Europe and the U.S.)
The Trump campaign did not respond to an e-mailed request for comment on this story.
Despite taking flack for the move, Trump didn’t delete the tweet.
Jarred Taylor, the founder and editor of American Renaissance and a dedicated white supremacist, recorded a robocall urging Iowa voters to support Trump in the caucuses. Taylor says that while he’s voted for Republicans in the past, Trump is the first one he’s actively campaigned for. Taylor is plain in his conviction that Trump is good for white Americans. “It’s his approach to immigration. That’s his No. 1 thing,” he says. “I’m sure that’s what is the central aspect of his appeal to most people who support him.”
Taylor maintains that most people like to live near others who are like them. “We are supposed to be rejoicing at demographic change,” he says, but he and others like him don’t feel the joy.
But America’s racial identity is changing, no matter how anyone feels about it. The share of America’s Hispanic population is expected to increase by 2030 in much of the country. And by the mid-2040s, white people will no longer constitute a majority in the country (but they will still be a plurality, and by a fairly healthy margin.) This is the result of several factors, including higher birth rates among minority communities and the expectation that immigration will continue apace in the U.S.
Doug Holtz-Eakin, the president of the American Action Forum and the former director of the Congressional Budget Office, notes that often in the wake of a wave of immigration to the U.S., there is an equal and opposite move toward nativism. “We had a big wave of Hispanic immigration,” he said. “Sadly, in politics, nothing works better than fear and anger, and Trump is just out there stoking it.”
Trump likes to claim he created this issue, but resentment and angst about demographic shifts were simmering before he entered the presidential race. Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst and a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, notes that white parents have much greater fears for their children’s futures than black and Hispanic parents. This trend, she says, has persisted for around a decade. And in a 2014 Reuters/Ispos poll, 70% of Americans and 80% of Republicans expressed a belief that undocumented immigrants “threaten traditional U.S. beliefs and customs.”
Trump is channeling these fears for his own electoral gains. Matthew Heimbach, a self-described white nationalist who recently formed his own “Traditional Workers” party, points out that while other political candidates like Pat Buchanan have used dog whistle tactics to court these voters, “Trump uses a bullhorn.”
In a July poll from the Washington Post and ABC News, 42% of whites said they viewed Trump favorably, compared with 17% of non-whites who said the same.
This is not an exclusively American phenomenon. In the 2015 Israeli elections, Likud Party candidate and sitting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly appealed to his supporters to get to the polls to offset an increased voting bloc of Israeli-Arabs. And in France, Marine Le Pen and her National Front party seem to have a real chance of winning national elections. The Danish People’s Party and Golden Dawn in Greece have also seized on a nationalist, anti-immigrant sentiment to gain power.
This Thing Isn’t Working
The racial anxiety that Trump has capitalized on has an economic sibling. That fear rests on the notion that large swathes of the American working population have no place in the post-recession U.S. economy. Trump conveniently directs that fear toward easy targets like immigrants and Muslims.
While the Obama administration has enjoyed several months of steady job creation in the U.S., with the unemployment rate falling below 5% in January 2016, there’s another side to this tale. Many people have simply dropped out of the workforce. The national labor force participation rate is currently at 62.7%. In the fall of 2000, at the end of the late-Clinton years boom, that rate was at an all-time high of 67.3%. For white men, it has gone from 75.9% in 1994 to 69.8% in 2014. And it is expected to dip to 66.5% by 2024.
Unlike the unemployment rate, the labor force participation rate includes people who aren’t looking for a job, either because they’re a student, a stay-at home parent, or because they’ve simply given up on the job search.
For young people, the situation is almost as bleak. In 1994, 83.1% of people between 20 and 24 were part of the U.S. labor force. In 2014, it was 73.9%.
At the same time, the long-held belief that a college degree can open doors to a bright economic future has come under attack. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of Americans enrolled at degree-granting institutions rose by 15% between 1992 and 2002, and by 24% between 2002 and 2012. At the same time, the job market for college grads has been challenging, with many graduates accepting positions that once would have gone to people with a high school diploma alone.
A 2014 survey from CareerBuilder found that 51% of college grads were employed in jobs that didn’t require a degree. This has pushed those with a high school diploma alone further into America’s economic periphery. The seasonally adjusted rate of employment for people under 25 with only high school diplomas in January 2016 was 54.7%. For college graduates, it was 72.5%.
A 2014 survey from the Pew Institute found that the median college-educated person made $17,500 more than those with a high school diploma. In 1965, the difference was closer to $7,500, and in 1986 it was $14,245. (Numbers adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2012 dollars.)
Making matters even more depressing, wages in the U.S. have been more or less stagnant since 1979, according to a study from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. “I think that’s the preeminent issue of our time,” said EPI President Larry Mishel.
Donald Trump’s message has resonated with these voters, the ones who feel that the economy does not have a place for them. In an ABC News-Washington Post national poll of registered Republicans and Republican-leaning voters taken in July 2015, Donald Trump received 32% support among people without a college degree, giving the candidate the largest portion of support from that group. Meanwhile, he received just 8% support from degree-holders.
Who’s Got Your Back?
On top of that, there’s another declining force in American politics that, once upon a time, would have provided a helping hand to at least some unemployed and underemployed workers—the union. In 1983, 20.1% of workers belonged to a union, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 2015, that figure was just 11.1%. Unions, for much of the 20th century, functioned as an equalizer for working-class Americans. Even if big companies and the nation’s wealthiest held more power than any worker individually, with a union working Americans had a collective voice to advocate for increased benefits, higher pay, and safer working conditions. But the jobs that the American economy is creating—in retail and health, for instance—do not always offer such support.
So, where exactly are people to turn? Increasingly, it isn’t to political parties. A 2015 poll from the Pew Research Center showed that 24% of Americans have a negative view of both Republicans and Democrats. So, people start looking for a third way, and some have found that in Donald Trump.
Recession PTSD
America’s current case of anxiety and anger stems in part from the unhealed scars of the financial crisis, Bowman says. The fear that the American financial system was going to collapse, that the economy was on the brink of an irreversible meltdown—are still there. And with indicators pointing towards another possible recession, those anxieties are being reawakened.
Bowman likens the current economic mood to the events of 1979 and 1980, when America was contending with a struggling economy and embarrassment abroad with the Iran crisis. And what happened in 1980? Voters turned to Ronald Reagan. Reagan, to be sure, is not quite the same as Trump — he’d been a governor before he ran for president. But he was a Washington outsider, someone who promised to come in and fix the problems that career politicians had created. His campaign slogan? “Let’s Make America Great Again.” Sound familiar?
The Other Side of the Same Coin
But Trump is not the only populist in the 2016 presidential race. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the insurgent democratic socialist who recently won the New Hampshire primary, has given Hillary Clinton a much tougher fight for the nomination than anyone thought likely.
At a basic level, Sanders’ message to voters is similar to Trump’s: You’ve been screwed over. You worked hard but you can’t make ends meet. And it isn’t your fault.
Sanders claims that it’s the nation’s biggest banks, the wealthiest 1%, and the crony capitalists (like, for instance, Donald Trump) who’ve taken your money, shipped your job overseas, and given you an unfair mortgage just to sell off the bad debt and eventually receive a bailout.
Heimbach, for his part, praises Sanders for taking on big banks. The problem for him and others in his camp, though, is that Sanders thinks globally. He encourages immigration and the extension of social benefits to those new arrivals.
Heimbach says that while Sanders is a “global socialist,” Trump is a “national socialist”—yes, a national socialist.Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, raises his fist after he finishes speaking during a campaign stop at the Claremont Opera House on February 2, 2016, in Claremont, N.H.Photograph by John Minchillo — APIf Sanders represents the classic Marxist line of thought that people are united more by class than race, Trump is the exact opposite. He wants to make America — and, implicitly, that means white America — great again. Everyone else be damned.
What’s Next
Donald Trump won the Republican Primary in New Hampshire this week. Bernie Sanders won the Democratic primary. It is possible neither will win their party’s nomination, though. If so, what happens next to their many supporters who feel disenfranchised and marginalized?
Michael Kimmel argues that, if Hillary Clinton makes it to the White House, the anger and bile may turn towards feminists—a shift that can already be seen online from groups like Men’s Rights Activists and #GamerGate. Such groups draw support from both sides of the political aisle.
To counter this anger, Holtz-Eakin says, the next president—assuming it isn’t Donald Trump—will have to have an “aggressive focus” on growing the economy, encouraging wage growth and job creation. At the same time, while that may have been enough to douse the flames Trump has lit the enormous potential for anger via social media may keep this fire alive and well. The establishments of both parties will try to restore the status quo—they may not be able to
TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Menteri Perhubungan Budi Karya Sumadi memberikan penghargaan Adikarya Dirgantara Adhirajasa kepada 18 kru penerbangan
Batik Air yang mengevakuasi warga negara Indonesia (WNI) di Wuhan, Cina. Penghargaan tersebut diserahkan di kantor Kementerian Perhubungan pada Senin petang, 17 Februari 2020.
"Saya selaku Menteri Perhubungan memberikan penghargaan kepada perseorangan dan lembaga atas kerja keras menjalankan misi kemanusiaan," ujar Budi Karya di kantornya saat menyampaikan apresiasi tersebut.
Budi Karya menjelaskan, penghargaan itu layak diterima oleh kru penerbangan lantaran mereka telah berani mengambil risiko terbang ke lokasi virus 2019-nCoV atau virus corona mewabah. Menurut Budi Karya, keberanian kru penerbangan itu dapat menjadi contoh bagi awak pesawat lainnya.
Tak hanya kepada kru, Budi Karya juga menyerahkan penghargaan kepada perusahaan Lion Air Group. Ihwal penugasan Batik Air untuk mengevakuasi WNI di Wuhan, Budi Karya menyatakan pemerintah memiliki alasan khusus.
Menurut dia, Lion Air Group merupakan satu-satunya maskapai yang memiliki rute penerbangan langsung ke Wuhan. Alasan lainnya, maskapai full service milik Lion Air Group itu memiliki armada berbadan lebar atau wide body yang mampu mengangkut lebih dari 200 penumpang.
Adapun total jumlah WNI yang diangkut dari Wuhan ke Indonesia ialah 245 orang. WNI itu dijemput pada 2 Februari 2020.
Bos Lion Air Group, Rusdi Kirana, mengatakan pemberian penghargaan dari pemerintah merupakan kejutan bagi perseroan. "Karena apa yang kami lakukan adalah bagian dari bela negara. Meski kami dari swasta, kami wajib terlibat," tuturnya kala ditemui di tempat yang sama.
Selain kru penerbangan, penghargaan Adikarya Dirgantara Adhirajasa turut diberikan kepada tujuh kementerian dan lembaga lainnya. Di antaranya Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana atau BNPB, Kementerian Luar Negeri, Kementerian Kesehatan, TNI Angkatan Udara, Pemerintah Kota Batam, Pemerintah Kabupaten Natuna, dan Otoritas Bandara Batam.
JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - Pilot Batik Air yang turut dalam evakuasi Warga Negara Indonesia (WNI) dari Wuhan, China ke Indonesia, Destyo Usodo rupanya sudah beberapa kali melakukan misi kemanusiaan. Namun, Destyo mengaku misi kemanusiaan virus corona inilah yang paling berkesan dalam hidupnya. "Jadi sudah beberapa kali, tapi ini yang berkesan," kata Destyo Usodo di Jakarta, Sabtu (15/2/2020). Baca juga: Kru Batik Air Sempat Kaget karena Harus Ikut Masa Observasi 14 Hari di Natuna Destyo bercerita, setidaknya dia sudah 3 kali melakukan misi kemanusiaan selain mengevakuasi WNI dari Wuhan, China akibat virus corona. Dua misi kemanusiaan lainnya adalah misi kemanusiaan di Timor Leste hingga misi kemanusiaan saat kerusuhan 1998-1999 di Banjarmasin Balikpapan dan Ambon. "Sudah beberapa kali sebelumnya. Di perusahaan saya dulu pernah ikut misi kemanusiaan WNI di Timor Leste. Saya join di Lion Grup dari 2003, saya pindah-pindah perusahaan di Lion Grup dan masuk Batik lagi November 2019, ini pertama di Lion Grup," cerita Destyo. Destyo mengaku bangga karena dia dan belasan awak kabin lainnya ditunjuk oleh perusahaan misi kemanusiaan ini, meski tidak ada jadwal penerbangan ke Wuhan. Selain itu, dia merasa WNI di Wuhan merupakan saudara-saudara warga Indonesia sehingga perlu diperhatikan pula. "18 orang ini terus terang bangga, 18 orang ini orang yang dipilih perusahaan menjalankan misi kemanusiaan ini, kami salah satu yang beruntung. Tentunya kita bekerja sesuai SOP ataupun manual yang ditetapkan perusahaan," ungkapnya.
Sebagai informasi, WNI yang telah dievakuasi dari Wuhan, China telah kembali ke Jakarta pada Sabtu (15/2/2020). WNI berserta awak pesawat yang turut serta dalam evakuasi tersebut dipulangkan usai melangsungkan masa observasi di Natuna selama 14 hari.
Sebelum pemulangan, mereka telah menjalani serangkaian pemeriksaan kesehatan terakhir pada Sabtu pagi. Hasilnya, para WNI dan awak pesawat dinyatakan sehat.
Artikel ini telah tayang di Kompas.com dengan judul "Pilot Batik Air yang Jalankan "Misi Corona" Kerap Lakukan Misi Kemanusiaan ", https://money.kompas.com/read/2020/02/15/220000126/pilot-batik-air-yang-jalankan-misi-corona-kerap-lakukan-misi-kemanusiaan-.
Penulis : Fika Nurul Ulya
Editor : Bambang P. Jatmiko
🐄
JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com — Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) mengingatkan seluruh peserta pemilu, baik pilpres maupun pileg, untuk mengumpullkan bukti permohonan gugatan Perselisihan Hasil Pemilihan Umum (PHPU) yang berkualitas dan signifikan. "Jadi memang berperkara di MK itu bukan banyak-banyakan berkas, banyak-banyakan bukti, melainkan bagaimana bukti itu secara berkualitas memiliki nilai hukum yang kuat," ujar Juru Bicara MK Fajar Laksono di Gedung MK, Jakarta Pusat, Selasa (21/5/2019). Fajar menjelaskan, berkaca dari pengalaman perselisihan hasil Pemilu 2014, tepatnya pada gugatan perkara pilpres, salah satu paslon masih menitikberatkan jumlah bukti yang banyak dibandingkan signifikansinya. Baca juga: MK Siap Layani Peserta Pemilu yang Ajukan Gugatan Padahal, bukti yang banyak secara kuantitas tidak selalu selaras dengan pembuktiannya. Kala itu, lanjut Fajar, MK sempat dituding tidak bekerja maksimal oleh kelompok tertentu karena menganggap banyak bukti kecurangan pilpres yang tidak tertangani dengan baik. "Waktu 2014 sempat ada tudingan ke MK kalau tidak bekerja maksimal. Ada yang berkontainer bukti yang diajukan, tapi tidak diperiksa. Kami ingatkan lagi, di MK bukan banyak-banyakan bukti," ucap Fajar. "Buktinya cukup satu atau dua, tapi yang menggunggat bisa membuktikan ya lebih baik daripada buktinya setumpuk tetapi tidak relevan. Terbaca kok oleh hakim kalau buktinya enggak relevan," lanjut dia. Baca juga: Mantan Ketua MK Sebut Pembuktian Kecurangan Pilpres 2019 Sangat Sulit Adapun MK menyediakan waktu tiga hari untuk menerima pendaftaran gugatan sengketa hasil Pemilu 2019 dari Selasa (21/5/2019) hingga Jumat (24/5/2019) dini hari. Pelayanan di MK berlangsung 24 jam. Proses pendaftaran gugatan hasil pemilu di MK dimulai setelah Komisi Pemilihan Umum (KPU) menetapkan hasil rekapitulasi nasional Pemilu 2019 pada Selasa (21/5/2019) dini hari.
Artikel ini telah tayang di Kompas.com dengan judul "MK Ingatkan Peserta Pemilu untuk Kumpulkan Bukti yang Kuat dan Berkualitas", https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2019/05/21/11183121/mk-ingatkan-peserta-pemilu-untuk-kumpulkan-bukti-yang-kuat-dan-berkualitas.
Penulis : Christoforus Ristianto
Editor : Inggried Dwi Wedhaswary
🐅
Jakarta detik- Politikus senior Partai PAN, Amien Rais, menyerukan akan melakukan people power jika ada kecurangan di Pilpres 2019 ketimbang mengajukan gugatan ke Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK). Apa tanggapan MK?
"Membawa atau tidak membawa perkara sengketa hasil pemilu, termasuk di dalamnya dugaan kecurangan pemilu ke MK, itu hak peserta pemilu, digunakan atau tidak hak itu, terserah saja. Yang pasti, menurut konstitusi, sengketa hasil pemilu sudah disediakan mekanismenya dan MK merupakan lembaga negara yang berwenang memutus sengketa hasil pemilu, termasuk jika ada dalil kecurangan yg mencederai demokrasi pemilu," ucap Jubir MK, Fajar Laksono, saat diwawancara detikcom, Senin (1/4/2019).
Namun, Fajar menyayangkan ancaman pengerahan massal itu diucapkan dari mulut Amien Rais yang notabenenya ikut membidani MK. Dia heran mengapa Amien Rais bertolak belakang ketika menjabat sebagai Ketua MPR dulu yang turut mengesahkan pembentukan MK.
"Publik semua tahu, Pak Amin Rais merupakan pelaku sejarah, bahkan memimpin MPR tatkala melakukan perubahan UUD 1945, termasuk turut menggagas dan mengesahkan pembentukan MK dengan segenap kewenangannya yang salah satunya kewenangan memutus sengketa hasil pemilu. Ini yang membuat kita sulit mengerti logika berpikirnya dan tentu saja menyesalkan pernyataan tersebut," ujarnya.
Dia juga menyesalkan ucapan Amien yang mengatakan tak gunanya membawa perkara kecurangan ke MK. Fajar menilai ucapan itu sama saja dengan penghinaan terhadap lembaga peradilan alias contemp of court.
"Akan tetapi, dgn mengatakan membawa perkara kecurangan Pemilu ke MK tak ada gunanya, ini yg patut disesalkan. Pernyataan itu, selain dapat dikategorikan sebagai contempt of court terhadap MK sebagai lembaga peradilan, juga telah menafikkan kerja keras seluruh komponen MK selama ini untuk menguatkan public trust terhadap MK," paparnya.
Sebelumnya, Amien mengatakan Apel Siaga Umat 313 digelar untuk mencegah kecurangan pemilu. Ketua Dewan Kehormatan PAN mengancam akan menggerakkan massa bila terjadi kecurangan. Amien mengatakan akan menggerakkan masa secara demokratis. Dia menjamin tidak ada kekerasan bila nantinya massa memprotes keputusan KPU.
"Kalau nanti terjadi kecurangan, kita nggak akan ke MK (Mahkamah Konstitusi). Nggak ada gunannya, tapi kita people power, people power sah," kata Amien di Masjid Sunda Kelapa, Menteng, Jakarta Pusat, Minggu (31/3).
(rvk/asp)
🐞
Jakarta - Tingginya curah hujan di hulu menyebabkan sejumlah wilayah di DKI Jakarta terendam banjir. Di Jakarta Selatan dan Jakarta Timur, 11.825 warga mengungsi akibat banjir.
🐙
"Hingga saat ini, terdapat 55 lokasi pengungsian di wilayah Jakarta Selatan dan Jakarta Timur, dengan total pengungsi 11.824 jiwa dari 4.084 kartu keluarga," kata Sekretaris Daerah DKI Jakarta Saefullah di Balai Kota, Jakarta Pusat, Rabu (7/2/2018).
Saefullah memaparkan wilayah Jakarta Selatan yang terdampak banjir meliputi 3 kecamatan, 5 kelurahan, 11 RW, dan 24 RT. Sedangkan wilayah Jakarta Timur meliputi 3 kecamatan, 6 kelurahan, 25 RW, dan 115 RT.
"Kita di sini untuk monitor banjir pukul 07.00 WIB. Jadi tiap pagi kita pukul 07.00 WIB kumpul SKPD terkait, terus sorenya kita evaluasi jika teman-teman membutuhkan info mengenai banjir sampai tanggal 16 Februari, tujuannya untuk kita membuat list apa yang dibutuhkan warga hari itu," paparnya.
Hingga pukul 14.50 WIB, lanjut Saefullah, sejumlah pintu air telah berada di status Siaga 3 dan Siaga 1. Pintu air yang berstatus Siaga 1 adalah pintu air Jembatan Merah dengan ketinggian air 226 cm.
"Pintu air yang Siaga 3 di pintu air Manggarai, tinggi airnya 771 cm," katanya.
Selanjutnya, pintu air lainnya yang berstatus Siaga 3 adalah pintu air Karet dengan ketinggian debit air 493 cm, pintu air Istiqlal dengan 273 cm, dan pintu air Hek dengan 192 cm.
"Sekarang Dinas SDA sudah siapin 423 rumah pompa dan 133 mobil pompa," ujarnya.
(idn/rvk)
Jakarta - Sejumlah lembaga survei sudah merilis hasil hitung cepat untuk putaran kedua Pilgub DKI 2017. Pasangan calon gubernur dan wakil gubernur DKI Jakarta nomor urut 3 Anies Baswedan-Sandiaga Uno unggul dalam sejumlah quick count.
Pada putaran pertama, Anies-Sandi berada di posisi kedua di bawah pasangan nomor urut 2 Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (Ahok)-Djarot Saiful Hidayat. Namun pada putaran kedua, suara Anies-Sandi melesat.
Tentu saja ada perubahan peta basis suara dari kedua pasangan calon. Sejumlah lembaga survei merilis perolehan suara masing-masing pasangan calon di tiap wilayah dalam hitung cepat atau quick count mereka.
Pada hasil quick count yang dari Median seperti dikutip detikcom, Kamis (20/4/2017), Anies-Sandi tampak unggul hampir di seluruh wilayah DKI Jakarta. Begitu pula dengan hasil quick count milik LSI.
Sementara itu Komisi Pemilihan Umum (KPU) juga telah mengeluarkan data sistem penghitungan (situng) atau real count. Sementara ini data yang masuk sudah 54,40% dengan perolehan suara Ahok-Djarot 43,59% dan Anies-Sandi 56,41%.
Lalu, bagaimana perolehan suara mereka berdasarkan wilayah di DKI Jakarta? Berikut datanya menurut lembaga survei dan KPU:
1. Median
Jakarta Barat
Ahok-Djarot: 48,05%
Anies-Sandi: 51,05%
Jakarta Pusat
Ahok-Djarot: 44,31%
Anies-Sandi: 55,59%
Jakarta Selatan
Ahok-Djarot: 39,23%
Anies-Sandi: 60,77%
Jakarta Timur
Ahok-Djarot: 37,45%
Anies-Sandi: 62,55%
Jakarta Utara
Ahok-Djarot: 42,39%
Anies-Sandi: 57,61%
Kepulauan Seribu
Ahok-Djarot: 54,13%
Anies-Sandi: 45,87%
Total
Ahok-Djarot: 41,99%
Anies-Sandi: 58,01%
2. LSI Denny JA
Jakarta Barat
Ahok-Djarot: 49,61%
Anies-Sandi: 50,39%
Jakarta Pusat
Ahok-Djarot: 43,97%
Anies-Sandi: 56,03%
Jakarta Selatan
Ahok-Djarot: 39,57%
Anies-Sandi: 60,43%
Jakarta Timur
Ahok-Djarot: 41,52%
Anies-Sandi: 58,48%
Jakarta Utara
Ahok-Djarot: 50,02%
Anies-Sandi: 49,98%
Total
Ahok-Djarot: 44,59%
Anies-Sandi: 55,41%
3.KPU (data masuk 54,40%)
Jakarta Barat
Ahok-Djarot: 46,6%
Anies-Sandi: 53,4%
Jakarta Pusat
Ahok-Djarot: 42,3%
Anies-Sandi: 57,7%
Jakarta Selatan
Ahok-Djarot: 39,3%
Anies-Sandi: 60,7%
Jakarta Timur
Ahok-Djarot: 38,1%
Anies-Sandi: 61,9%
Jakarta Utara
Ahok-Djarot: 50,9%
Anies-Sandi: 49,1%
Kepulauan Seribu
Ahok-Djarot: 35,7%
Anies-Sandi: 64,3%
Total
Ahok-Djarot: 43,59%
Anies-Sandi: 56,41%
(bag/imk)
🐊
TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Gerakan Masyarakat untuk Demokrasi (Gema Demokrasi) menilai pemerintahan Presiden Jokowi sudah melecehkan demokrasi dan keadilan lewat rentetan peristiwa yang terjadi belakangan ini. Pemerintahan Joko Widodo dianggap tunduk pada kekerasan dan tekanan massa dalam menegakkan hukum.
“Saat negara tidak lagi tunduk dan taat pada prinsip rule of law pada saat yang sama negara sedang menghancurkan bangunan demokrasi yang ada,” ujar salah satu aktivis Gema Demokrasi, Pratiwi Febry, dalam keterangan tertulis, Rabu, 9 Mei 2017.
Baca juga:
Soal Vonis Ahok, Jokowi Minta Masyarakat Hormati Putusan Hakim
Gerakan yang diikuti lebih dari 80 organisasi masyarakat ini mengecam tiga tindakan yang dianggap melecehkan demokrasi dan bentuk ketidakadilan. Pertama terkait penjatuhan vonis terhadap Gubernur DKI Jakarta Basuki Tjahaja Purnama alias Ahok, kedua tentang pembubaran Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia atau HTI, dan ketiga soal pembubaran pameran seni karya Andreas Iswinarto.
Dalam kasus Basuki alias Ahok, Gema Demokrasi menilai bahwa pasal penistaan agama yang digunakan hakim adalah pasal anti-demokrasi yang tidak lagi kontekstual untuk diimplementasikan pada negara demokrasi seperti Indonesia. Mereka beralasan pasal 156 a KUHP ini lahir di masa demokrasi terpimpin yang anti-demokrasi dan dianggap pasal karet yang tidak memenuhi asas lex certa dan lex scripta dalam asas legalitas pada hukum pidana.
Baca pula:
Tanggapan Jokowi Soal Ormas yang Dianggap Penentang Pancasila
“Hal tersebut mengakibatkan penafsiran terhadap pemenuhan unsur-unsur pasal sangat subyektif dan akhirnya melahirkan ketidakpastian hukum bagi masyarakat Indonesia,” ujarnya.
Pasal penodaan agama kerap dijadikan alat represi kelompok mayoritas kepada minoritas. Pola yang sama kerap terjadi sejak aturan itu berlaku yaitu berupa tekanan massa pada setiap penggunaan pasal penodaan agama. “Sehingga putusan peradilan tidak lagi mengacu pada hukum yang objektif dan imparsial melainkan tunduk pada tekanan massa (rule by mob/mobokrasi),” tuturnya.
Silakan baca:
Persekutuan Gereja Kirim Surat ke Jokowi Soal Suhu Politik, Isinya..
Gema Demokrasi juga mengganggap pembubaran sepihak terhadap HTI adalah wajah terburuk dari demokrasi lantaran bertentangan dengan nilai-nilai demokrasi itu sendiri. Pembatasan ormas dapat dibenarkan, namun seharusnya menjadi langkah paling akhir yang dilakukan pemerintah sebagai bagian dari penegakkan hukum.
Pembubaran itu juga seharusnya didasari dengan undang-undang dan alasan yang jelas atas pelanggaran yang dilakukan oleh sebuah ormas. “Tidak bisa hanya berdasarkan ujaran semata melainkan harus dibuktikan melalui proses peradilan yang adil, yang sebelumnya harus didahului dengan serangkaian tindakan administratif yang diatur oleh UU,” ujar Pratiwi.
Baca:
Jokowi Sebut Praktek Demokrasi Sudah Kebablasan
Allan Nairn: Beranikah Jokowi Usut Tuntas Pembunuhan Munir?
Bila pembubaran itu karena ormas tersebut terindikasi melanggar hukum yang mengganggu ketertiban serta keamanan masyarakat, maka seharusnya dilakuan dengan memproses hukum ormas-ormas yang terbukti melakukan aksi kekerasan. “Bukan memberangus atas dasar perbedaan gagasan,” katanya.
Gema Demokrasi mengutuk pula pembubaran pameran karya Andreas Iswinarto yang berjudul "Aku Masih Utuh dan Kata-kata Belum Binasa" di Pusham UII Yogyakarta dan di Gedung Sarikat Islam Semarang. Tudingan berbau komunis dan pembubaran yang dilakukan oleh organisasi masyarakat berbalut Pancasila dan Islam ini seharusnya bisa ditindak oleh pemerintah karena melanggar kebebasan berekspresi dan termasuk menyebarkan berita bohong.
Simak:
Jokowi Bahagia Sekali Peringati Isra Miraj di Pesantren
“Kami mengecam aparat dan intel dari pihak Kepolisian yang hanya diam dan tidak melakukan tindakan apa pun serta merestui tindakan main hakim dari ormas-ormas vigilante tersebut, alih-alih melindungi lembaga yang menyelenggarakan acara pameran seni tersebut,” ucapnya.
Gema Demokrasi menegaskan Indonesia adalah negara demokrasi yang menjunjung penegakkan hukum yang adil dan hak asasi manusia. Prinsip-prinsip itu seharusnya berlaku kepada siapa saja yang ada di Indonesia tanpa terkecuali.
“Indonesia adalah negara hukum (rech stat) bukan negara kekuasaan (mach staat) yang seharusnya Pemerintahan Jokowi tidak tunduk pada pendapat segerombolan massa yang menekan hukum ataupun pemerintah,” ujar Pratiwi.
AHMAD FAIZ
👹
Jakarta - Dinamika Pemilihan Gubernur (Pilgub) DKI Jakarta dinilai mirip dengan Pemilihan Presiden (Pilpres) 2014. Kemiripan itu adalah ketika salah satu pasangan merasa sudah menang, sehingga bakal terjadi drama "gubernur-gubernuran".
Salah satu penyebabnya adalah perbedaan hasil elektabilitas dari sejumlah lembaga survei. Sangat memungkinkan terdapat pasangan calon yang bersikap seperti sudah pasti memenangkan Pilgub DKI Jakarta.
"Drama 'gubernur-gubernuran' sangat mungkin terjadi. Lembaga survei memiliki hasil berbeda, sehingga memunculkan respon berbeda juga. Belum lagi ketika hasil quick count (hitung cepat) nanti munculnya," kata Direktur Eksekutif Lingkar Madani untuk Indonesia Ray Rangkuti di Jakarta, Minggu (16/4).
Seperti diketahui, pada Pilpres 2014, kubu pasangan capres dan cawapres Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Radjasa sempat menggelar acara syukuran, seolah sudah terpilih. Padahal, belum ada keputusan resmi dari Komisi Pemilihan Umum (KPU) terkait hasil penghitungan suara.
Sejumlah kalangan menyebut hal tersebut sebagai drama 'presiden-presidenan'. Peristiwa ini dipicu oleh sejumlah perbedaan hasil hitung cepat sejumlah lembaga survei.
Sementara, saat ini, Pilgub DKI baru digelar 19 April nanti, namun program, visi, dan misi pasangan Anies Baswedan-Sandiaga Uno sudah dijalankan dengan kondisi seolah telah memenangkan Pilgub DKI. "Ini bagian dari strategi menguatkan dukungan dan meningkatkan kepercayaan diri di akhir masa kampanye," ucap Ray.
Menurutnya, situasi demikian berkaitan erat hubungannya dengan psikologi internal tim Anies-Sandi. Menurut Ray, tampak muncul upaya untuk membangkitkan semangat yang mulai kendur. Pasalnya, sejumlah hasil survei menggambarkan kecenderungan tren naik pasangan Basuki Tjahaja Purnama-Djarot Saiful Hidayat.
Drama gubernur-gubernuran, masih kata Ray, sangat mungkin berlanjut, khususnya ketika menyikapi hasil hitung cepat nanti. "Sebaiknya, memang tak perlu ada drama seperti itu. Tunggu saja hasil resminya. Kalah dengan lapang dada itu jauh lebih bijaksana dan dewasa," tandasnya.
Carlos KY Paath/AO
BeritaSatu.com
👦👦
Padang Sidempuan - Amelia Nasution, 18, siswi Kelas 12 SMK Negeri 3 Kota Padang Sidempuan, Sumatera Utara (Sumut), yang meminum racun rumput karena merasa terintimidasi setelah mengungkap kecurangan ujian nasional berskala komputer (UNBK), akhirnya menghembuskan nafas terakhir setelah sembilan hari menjalani perawatan, Senin (10/4).
Amelia meninggal dunia di Rumah Sakit Umum Daerah (RSUD) Padang Sidempuan. Jenazahnya langsung dibawa keluarga untuk disemayamkan di rumah orangtuanya di Desa Bahal, Kecamatan Batunadua, Kota Padang Sidempuan. Selain keluarga, rekan sekolah Amelia juga kehilangan mendengar rekannya itu akhirnya meninggal dunia.
Kepala Ombidsman Sumut Abyadi Siregar melalui akun Facebook membenarkan kabar tersebut.
Abyadi menulis bahwa Amelia yang sempat diinterogasi tiga guru diduga merasa terintimidasi sehingga berusaha bunuh diri dengan minum racun, dan akhirnya meninggal dunia.
Yanwar Nasution, 49, ayah Amelia, merasa sangat terpukul atas musibah yang menimpa anaknya tersebut. Apalagi, sebelum korban meninghal dunia dan saat menjalani perawatan di rumah sakit, dirinya mendengar pengakuan mengejutkan dari puteri kesayangannya tersebut. Amelia minum racun rumput setelah terintimidasi.
Aksi nekatnya diduga karena intinmidasi gurunya berinisial E yang mengancam akan memenjarakan dirinya dan mendenda Rp 750 juta. Intimidasi itu dilakukan oknum guru karena Amelia bersama rekannya, Idda Annur dan Rini Afrianti, memprotes guru E yang diduga membocorkan kunci jawaban UNBK kepada anaknya berinisial Y.
Aksi protes itu muncul melalui media sosial. Berbagai tudingan diungkapkan korban dan rekan-rekannya. Merasa tidak senang, guru E memanggil Amelia dan rekan-rekannya itu ke sekolah. Mereka langsung diintimidasi dan diancam akan dilaporkan. Amelia pun ketakutan dan setelah pulang langsung ke belakang rumah.
Amelia langsung meminum racun rumput. Orangtuanya melihat dia dalam kondisi mulut berbuih dan langsung melarikannya ke rumah sakit. Berdasarkan keterangan dari Amelia saat dirawat, dan dikuatkan pengakuan rekan-rekan korban, terungkap bahwa percobaan bunuh diri itu dilakukan korban karena terintimidasi sehingga mengalami depresi dan kemudian nekat untuk bunuh diri.
Arnold H Sianturi/HA
Suara Pembaruan
😖
KOMPAS METRO - PKS merupakan partai yang sangat getol menyuarakan bahwa memilih pemimpin non-Muslim adalah haram. Bahkan Partai ini kerap menggunakan ayat-ayat al-Qur’an sebagai argumentasi teologis untuk mendukung kebenaran pendapatnya.
Ternyata seruan PKS ini hanya berlaku di Ibu Kota. Faktanya, dalam Pilkada serentak 2017, PKS mendukung 22 Calon Kepala Daerah non-Muslim di berbagai daerah di Indonesia. Realita ini menegaskan bahwa PKS membolehkan pemimpin non-Muslim.
Pembodohan Publik
Di Jakarta, kader-kader PKS secara terang-terangan menolak Ahok karena beragama Kristen dan beretnis Thionghoa. Bahkan mereka kerap medoakan Ahok di depan publik agar tidak terpilih menjadi Gubernur DKI 2017.
kompas metro: Begitu juga dengan kelompok-kelompok fundamentalis-radikalis seperti Front Pembela Islam (FPI) dan Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) yang juga sangat getol menolak pemimpin non-Muslim dan melontarkan ayat-ayat al-Qur’an agar publik tidak memilih Ahok.
Tentu, sikap seperti ini adalah pembodohan publik. Jika ingin konsisten menggunakan al-Maidah 51 semestinya jangan setengah-setengah. PKS dan kalangan fundamentalis-radikalis semestinya juga mengharamkan pemimpin-pemimpin non-muslim di berbagai daerah di negeri ini. Seperti di Bali, Papua, Maluku, dan daerah-daerah lainnya.
Atas konsekuensi menggunakan al-Maidah 51, mereka juga semestinya konsisten menolak para pejabat publik di negeri ini yang beragama non-Islam. Seperti bupati, gubernur, menteri dan semua pemimpin negara yang non-muslim.
Sayangnya, yang terjadi justru sebaliknya, mereka tidak menolak pemimpin non-Muslim. Mereka secara terang-terangan mengusung pemimpin non-Muslim sebagai kepala daerah. Begitu juga dengan partai-partai berbasis Islam lain juga memberikan dukungan terhadap calon kepala daerah non-Muslim.
Ini semua menunjukkan bahwa sebenarnya PKS tidak memandang agama dalam mencalonkan kepala daerah, namun lebih pada track record dan kinerja. Sebagaimana menurut Toha al-Hamid, seorang kader PKS Papua, bahwa adalah wajar jika PKS tidak selalu mengusung figur Muslim.
Keliru besar jika menganggap PKS selalu mendukung calon muslim. Menurut Toha al-Hamid, PKS mempunyai semangat Pancasila. Bahkan di Kabupaten Tolikara dan Lanny Jaya, PKS memiliki wakil di DPRD yang non-muslim.
Kepentingan
Pertanyaannya, mengapa PKS menolak mendukung Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (Ahok) namun mendukung banyak calon non-muslim di daerah lain? Apakah ayat dan dalil haramnya non-muslim hanya berlaku untuk Ahok ?
Maka jawabannya bisa banyak kemungkinan. Bisa jadi karena memiliki sentimen pribadi dengan Ahok , atau secara kalkulasi politik tidak menguntungkan partai, atau ingin memperoleh legitimasi publik Jakarta agar PKS dianggap partai paling islami.
Atau bahkan hanya atas dasar pertimbangan ekonomi dan bisnis semata. Namun itu semua tak lain bermuara pada faktor kepentingan. PKS yang sangat yang gencar berkampanye agar memilih kepala daerah Muslim hanya akal-akalannya saja. Faktanya mereka membolehkan pemimpin non-muslim.
Menurut Mardani, salah satu tokoh PKS, meskipun PKS adalah partai Islam, namun memberi peluang bagi siapapun orang Indonesia, apapun latar belakang nya baik agama, suku dan golongan yang berbeda untuk menjadi pemimpin. Hal ini karena Indonesia adalah negara majemuk yang terdiri dari berbagai suku dan keyakinan keagamaan yang berbeda.
Dari realita ini, semestinya PKS dan berbagai ormas radikal jangan membohongi publik. Ini sama artinya menjual ayat-ayat agama untuk kepentingan politik sesaat. Dan tentu saja Islam mengecam perilaku memperjual belikan ayat-ayat suci.
Di permukaan, PKS seakan-akan konsisten mengusung pemimpin muslim atas dasar Q.S. Al-Maidah 51. Namun faktanya sudah sejak dulu Parpol berlabel Islam ini kerap mengusung/mencalonkan beberapa Paslon non-Muslim.
PKS yang berlatar belakang Islam perlu “Muhasabah” atau berbenah diri dan jangan membodohi publik karena publik sudah paham atas politisasi agama ini. Jika tidak, cepat atau lambat PKS akan ditinggalkan oleh pendukungnya sendiri.
Jangan sekali-kali menggunakan Surat al-Maidah sebagai senjata politik “pamungkas” untuk membungkam posisi Ahok sebagai petahana. Karena ini mencoreng nilai-nilai luhur ajaran agama.
Oleh: Ahmad Hifni
Sumber: Qureeta.com
👅
Suara.com - Politikus Partai Gerindra Desmond J. Mahesa mempertanyakan model pertanyaan yang dibuat lembaga riset Indikator Politik Indonesia dalam survei terhadap pasangan calon gubernur dan wakil gubernur Jakarta. Sebab, mereka membandingkan program pasangan petahana, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama dan Djarot Saiful Hidayat, dengan kandidat yang belum berkuasa.
"Kalau menurut saya, kok yang disurvei antara petahana yang telah berkuasa dan yang belum berkuasa?" ujar Burhanudin di Kantor Indikator Politik Indonesia, jalan Cikini V, Jakarta Pusat, Kamis (24/11/2016).
Desmond kemudian membandingkan hasil survei yang dilakukan Lingkaran Survei Indonesia Denny JA yang menyebutkan elektabilitas pasangan Agus Harimurti Yudhoyono - Sylviana Murni sebesar 30,9 persen dan elektabilitas Anies Baswedan-Sandiaga Uno sebesar 31,9 persen, sementara Ahok dan Djarot hanya 10,6 persen.
Sementara hasil survei Indikator Politik Indonesia menyebut elektabilitas Anies -Sandiaga sebesar 24,5 persen, pasangan Agus - Sylviana sebesar 30,4 persen, dan Ahok-Djarot sebesar 26,2 persen.
"Pertanyaan ini lebih terlihat seperti campaign, jadi kesan saya siapa yang abal-abal surveinya? LSI Denny JA atau Indikator?" kata dia.
Itu sebabnya, anggota Komisi III DPR menilai hasil survei Indikator Politik Indonesia tidak bisa digunakan untuk mengukur kekuatan pasangan nomor urut tiga, Anies-Sandiaga, yang diusung Gerindra dan PKS.
"Bagi kami ini tidak bisa jadi, kenapa? Mana mungkin Anies-Sandi tidak terlihat programnya, yang lebih luar biasa (pertanyaan kepada responden) tidak lihat produk Agus, tetapi supaya Agus lebih baik dari Ahok," kata Desmond seraya meninggalkan ruangan.
✌
JAKARTA jpnn - Forum Rektor Indonesia (FRI) juga mengeluarkan pernyataan terkait aksi demonstrasi 4 November.
Ketua FRI Rochmat Wahab menuturkan seluruh pimpinan perguruan tinggi diminta untuk tetap mengendalikan kegiatan akademik dan no akademik di kampus masing-masing.
Jangan sampai ada aktivitas yang menyimpang dari tridharma perguruan tinggi.
FRI menyampaikan masukan kepada kepolisian terkait tudingan penistaan atau pencemaran agama.
Dia mengatakan penegak hukum harus bisa bersikap tegas terhadap pelanggaran hukum.
’’Tentunya dengan berpedoman pada undang-undang yang berlaku,’’ jelasnya.
Rochmat berharap penegak hukum bekerja sesuai kaidah hukum tanpa terpengaruh tekanan massa. (byu/mia/jun/idr/wan)
BBC NEWS Terpidana kasus terorisme Abu Bakar Ba’asyir
mengatakan mendukung gerakan pembentukan negara Islam oleh kelompok
Negara Islam Irak dan Suriah (ISIS).Pernyataan dukungan Ba'asyir, yang disebut-sebut
sebagai pemimpin spiritual jaringan ekstremis, disampaikan di penjara
Nusa Kambangan, Cilacap, Jawa Tengah.
Ba’asyir juga meminta kepada para pengikutnya untuk mendukung ISIS, kata ketua Jamaah Anshorut Tauhid (JAT), Mochammad Achwan.
JAT adalah organisasi yang didirikan oleh
Ba'asyir setelah keluar dari Jemaah Islamiah, yang dinyatakan berada di
belakang bom Bali 2002 dan beberapa kasus terorisme.
"Ba'asyir mengatakan kepada kami untuk mendukung
perjuangan ISIS karena tiga hal. Ada pemimpinnya, bisa melaksanakan
syariat, dan dideklarasikan. Tapi Pak Ba'asyir belum berbaiat
(menyatakan sumpah setia)," kata Achwan kepada Sri Lestari dari BBC
Indonesia.
"Pak Ba'asyir baru sebatas mendukung," katanya.
Peran individu
ISIS menyerukan orang-orang Islam untuk datang ke Irak dan Suriah guna mendirikan negara Islam.
Ia enggan menjelaskan secara rinci bentuk
dukungan kepada ISIS tapi mengatakan sejumlah anggota JAT telah pergi ke
Suriah dan bergabung dengan ISIS dan Jabhat al-Nusra (JN).
JN merupakan sebuah organisasi jihadis di Suriah yang memiliki kaitan dengan al-Qaida.
Pengamat terorisme Taufik Andrie mengatakan
dukungan yang diberikan oleh Ba’asyir bisa berpengaruh kepada para
pengikutnya, tapi secara umum peran kepemimpinan dalam kelompok jihad
tidak terlalu banyak berperan.
"Dinamika jihad global itu membutuhkan keputusan
yang sifatnya segera dan individu memungkinan untuk mengambil peran di
sini. Tanpa keputusan amir (pemimpin) pun mereka dapat mengambil
keputusan secara individu karena ada ruangnya yaitu di Suriah dan Irak,"
jelas Taufik.
Selain Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, terpidana terorisme
yang mendukung ISIS adalah Aman Abdurrahman, yang divonis sembilan tahun
penjara karena kasus pelatihan terorisme di Aceh.
Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Terorisme
menyatakan anggota kelompok militan dari Indonesia bergabung dengan ISIS
di Suriah dan Irak, tapi tidak dapat memastikan jumlah mereka.
The Jihad Against the Jihadis
How moderate Muslim leaders waged war on extremists—and won.
By Fareed Zakaria | NEWSWEEK
Published Feb 12, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Feb 22, 2010
September 11, 2001, was gruesome enough on its own terms, but for many of us, the real fear was of what might follow. Not only had Al Qaeda shown it was capable of sophisticated and ruthless attacks, but a far greater concern was that the group had or could establish a powerful hold on the hearts and minds of Muslims. And if Muslims sympathized with Al Qaeda's cause, we were in for a herculean struggle. There are more than 1.5 billion Muslims living in more than 150 countries across the world. If jihadist ideology became attractive to a significant part of this population, the West faced a clash of civilizations without end, one marked by blood and tears.
These fears were well founded. The 9/11 attacks opened the curtain on a world of radical and violent Islam that had been festering in the Arab lands and had been exported across the globe, from London to Jakarta. Polls all over the Muslim world revealed deep anger against America and the West and a surprising degree of support for Osama bin Laden. Governments in most of these countries were ambivalent about this phenomenon, assuming that the Islamists' wrath would focus on the United States and not themselves. Large, important countries like Saudi Arabia and Indonesia seemed vulnerable.
More than eight eventful years have passed, but in some ways it still feels like 2001. Republicans have clearly decided that fanning the public's fears of rampant jihadism continues to be a winning strategy. Commentators furnish examples of backwardness and brutality from various parts of the Muslim world—and there are many—to highlight the grave threat we face.
But, in fact, the entire terrain of the war on terror has evolved dramatically. Put simply, the moderates are fighting back and the tide is turning. We no long-er fear the possibility of a major country succumbing to jihadist ideology. In most Muslim nations, mainstream rulers have stabilized their regimes and their societies, and extremists have been isolated. This has not led to the flowering of Jeffersonian democracy or liberalism. But modern, somewhat secular forces are clearly in control and widely supported across the Muslim world. Polls, elections, and in-depth studies all confirm this trend.
The focus of our concern now is not a broad political movement but a handful of fanatics scattered across the globe. Yet Washington's vast nation-building machinery continues to spend tens of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there are calls to do more in Yemen and Somalia. What we have to ask ourselves is whether any of that really will deter these small bands of extremists. Some of them come out of the established democracies of the West, hardly places where nation building will help. We have to understand the changes in the landscape of Islam if we are going to effectively fight the enemy on the ground, rather than the enemy in our minds.
Once, no country was more worrying than bin Laden's homeland. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, steward of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, had surpassed Egypt as the de facto leader of the Arab world because of the vast sums of money it doled out to Islamic causes—usually those consonant with its puritanical Wahhabi doctrines. Since 1979 the Saudi regime had openly appeased its homegrown Islamists, handing over key ministries and funds to reactionary mullahs. Visitors to Saudi Arabia after 9/11 were shocked by what they heard there. Educated Saudis—including senior members of the government—publicly endorsed wild conspiracy theories and denied that any Saudis had been involved in the 9/11 attacks. Even those who accepted reality argued that the fury of some Arabs was inevitable, given America's one-sided foreign policy on the Arab-Israeli issue.
America's initial reaction to 9/11 was to focus on Al Qaeda. The group was driven out of its base in Afghanistan and was pursued wherever it went. Its money was tracked and blocked, its fighters arrested and killed. Many other nations joined in, from France to Malaysia. After all, no government wanted to let terrorists run loose in its land.
But a broader conversation also began, one that asked, "Why is this happening, and what can we do about it?" The most influential statement on Islam to come out of the post-9/11 era was not a presidential speech or an intellectual's essay. It was, believe it or not, a United Nations report. In 2002 the U.N. Development Program published a detailed study of the Arab world. The paper made plain that in an era of globalization, openness, diversity, and tolerance, the Arabs were the world's great laggards. Using hard data, the report painted a picture of political, social, and intellectual stagnation in countries from the Maghreb to the Gulf. And it was written by a team of Arab scholars. This was not paternalism or imperialism. It was truth.
The report, and many essays and speeches by political figures and intellectuals in the West, launched a process of reflection in the Arab world. The debate did not take the form that many in the West wanted—no one said, "You're right, we are backward." But still, leaders in Arab countries were forced to advocate modernity and moderation openly rather than hoping that they could quietly reap its fruits by day while palling around with the mullahs at night. The Bush administration launched a series of programs across the Muslim world to strengthen moderates, shore up civil society, and build forces of tolerance and pluralism. All this has had an effect. From Dubai to Amman to Cairo, in some form or another, authorities have begun opening up economic and political systems that had been tightly closed. The changes have sometimes been small, but the arrows are finally moving in the right direction.
Ultimately, the catalyst for change was something more lethal than a report. After 9/11, Al Qaeda was full of bluster: recall the videotapes of bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, boasting of their plans. Yet they confronted a far less permissive environment. Moving money, people, and materials had all become much more difficult. So they, and local groups inspired by them, began attacking where they could—striking local targets rather than global ones, including a nightclub and hotel in Indonesia, a wedding party in Jordan, cafés in Casablanca and Istanbul, and resorts in Egypt. They threatened the regimes that, either by accident or design, had allowed them to live and breathe.
Over the course of 2003 and 2004, Saudi Arabia was rocked by a series of such terrorist attacks, some directed against foreigners, but others at the heart of the Saudi regime—the Ministry of the Interior and compounds within the oil industry. The monarchy recognized that it had spawned dark forces that were now endangering its very existence. In 2005 a man of wisdom and moderation, King Abdullah, formally ascended to the throne and inaugurated a large-scale political and intellectual effort aimed at discrediting the ideology of jihadism. Mullahs were ordered to denounce suicide bombings, and violence more generally. Education was pried out of the hands of the clerics. Terrorists and terror suspects were "rehabilitated" through extensive programs of education, job training, and counseling. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus said to me, "The Saudi role in taking on Al Qaeda, both by force but also using political, social, religious, and educational tools, is one of the most important, least reported positive developments in the war on terror."
Perhaps the most successful country to combat jihadism has been the world's most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia. In 2002 that country seemed destined for a long and painful struggle with the forces of radical Islam. The nation was rocked by terror attacks, and a local Qaeda affiliate, Jemaah Islamiah, appeared to be gaining strength. But eight years later, JI has been marginalized and main-stream political parties have gained ground, all while a young democracy has flowered after the collapse of the Suharto dictatorship.
Magnus Ranstorp of Stockholm's Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies recently published a careful study examining Indonesia's success in beating back extremism. The main lesson, he writes, is to involve not just government but civil society as a whole, including media and cultural figures who can act as counterforces to terrorism. (That approach obviously has greater potential in regions and countries with open and vibrant political systems—Southeast Asia, Turkey, and India—than in the Arab world.)
Iraq occupies an odd place in this narrative. While the invasion of Iraq inflamed the Muslim world and the series of blunders during the initial occupation period created dangerous chaos at the heart of the Middle East, Iraq also became a stage on which Al Qaeda played a deadly hand, and lost. As Al Qaeda in Iraq gained militarily, it began losing politically. It turned from its broader global ideology to focus on a narrow sectarian agenda, killing Shias and fueling a Sunni-Shia civil war. In doing so, the group also employed a level of brutality and violence that shocked most Iraqis. Where the group gained control, even pious people were repulsed by its reactionary behavior. In Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni insurgency, Al Qaeda in Iraq would routinely cut off the fingers of smokers. Even those Sunnis who feared the new Iraq began to prefer Shia rule to such medievalism.
Since 9/11, Western commentators have been calling on moderate Muslim leaders to condemn jihadist ideology, issue fatwas against suicide bombing, and denounce Al Qaeda. Since about 2006, they've begun to do so in significant numbers. In 2007 one of bin Laden's most prominent Saudi mentors, the preacher and scholar Salman al-Odah, wrote an open letter criticizing him for "fostering a culture of suicide bombings that has caused bloodshed and suffering, and brought ruin to entire Muslim communities and families." That same year Abdulaziz al ash-Sheikh, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, issued a fatwa prohibiting Saudis from engaging in jihad abroad and accused both bin Laden and Arab regimes of "transforming our youth into walking bombs to accomplish their own political and military aims." One of Al Qaeda's own top theorists, Abdul-Aziz el-Sherif, re-nounced its extremism, including the killing of civilians and the choosing of targets based on religion and nationality. Sherif—a longtime associate of Zawahiri who crafted what became known as Al Qaeda's guide to jihad—has called on militants to desist from terrorism, and authored a rebuttal of his former cohorts.
Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the oldest and most prestigious school of Islamic learning, now routinely condemns jihadism. The Darul Uloom Deoband movement in India, home to the original radicalism that influenced Al Qaeda, has inveighed against suicide bombing since 2008. None of these groups or people have become pro-American or liberal, but they have become anti-jihadist.
This might seem like an esoteric debate. But consider: the most important moderates to denounce militants have been the families of radicals. In the case of both the five young American Muslims from Virginia arrested in Pakistan last year and Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, parents were the ones to report their worries about their own children to the U.S. government—an act so stunning that it requires far more examination, and praise, than it has gotten. This is where soft power becomes critical. Were the fathers of these boys convinced that the United States would torture, maim, and execute their children without any sense of justice, they would not have come forward. I doubt that any Chechen father has turned his child over to Vladimir Putin's regime.
The data on public opinion in the Muslim world are now overwhelming. London School of Economics professor Fawaz Gerges has analyzed polls from dozens of Muslim countries over the past few years. He notes that in a range of places—Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Lebanon, and Bangladesh—there have been substantial declines in the number of people who say suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets can be justified to defend Islam. Wide majorities say such attacks are, at most, rarely acceptable.
The shift has been especially dramatic in Jordan, where only 12 percent of Jordanians view suicide attacks as "often or sometimes justified" (down from 57 percent in 2005). In Indonesia, 85 percent of respondents agree that terrorist attacks are "rarely/never justified" (in 2002, by contrast, only 70 percent opposed such attacks). In Pakistan, that figure is 90 percent, up from 43 percent in 2002. Gerges points out that, by comparison, only 46 percent of Americans say that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."
This shift does not reflect a turn away from religiosity or even from a backward conception of Islam. That ideological struggle persists and will take decades, not years, to resolve itself. But the battle against jihadism has fared much better, much sooner, than anyone could have imagined.
The exceptions to this picture readily spring to mind—Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen. But consider the conditions in those countries. In Afghanistan, jihadist ideology has wrapped itself around a genuine ethnic struggle in which Pashtuns feel that they are being dispossessed by rival groups. In Pakistan, the regime is still where Saudi Arabia was in 2003 and 2004: slowly coming to realize that the extremism it had fostered has now become a threat to its own survival. In Yemen, the state simply lacks the basic capacity to fight back. So the rule might simply be that in those places where a government lacks the desire, will, or capacity to fight jihadism, Al Qaeda can continue to thrive.
But the nature of the enemy is now quite different. It is not a movement capable of winning over the Arab street. Its political appeal does not make rulers tremble. The video messages of bin Laden and Zawahiri once unsettled moderate regimes. Now they are mostly dismissed as almost comical attempts to find popular causes to latch onto. (After the financial crash, bin Laden tried his hand at bashing greedy bankers.)
This is not an argument to relax our efforts to hunt down militants. Al Qaeda remains a group of relentless, ruthless killers who are trying to recruit other fanatics to carry out hideous attacks that would do terrible damage to civilized society. But the group's aura is gone, its political influence limited. Its few remaining fighters are spread thinly throughout the world and face hostile environments almost everywhere.
America is no longer engaged in a civilizational struggle throughout the Muslim world, but a military and intelligence campaign in a set of discrete places. Now, that latter struggle might well require politics, diplomacy, and development assistance—in the manner that good foreign policy always does (Petraeus calls this a "whole-of-government strategy"). We have allies; we need to support them. But the target is only a handful of extremist organizations that have found a small group of fanatics to carry out their plans. To put it another way, even if the United States pursues a broad and successful effort at nation building in Afghanistan and Yemen, does anyone really think that will deter the next Nigerian misfit—or fanatic from Detroit—from getting on a plane with chemicals in his underwear? Such people cannot be won over. They cannot be reasoned with; they can only be captured or killed.
The enemy is not vast; the swamp is being drained. Al Qaeda has already lost in the realm of ideology. What remains is the battle to defeat it in the nooks, crannies, and crevices of the real world.
