By: Azhari Setiawan, CESIST (Center for Social, Politics, and Islamic Thoughts)

Everyone, every institution, talks about terrorism. It has been more than a decade that the world still fighting and struggling on the war of terrorism. Plenty of strategies, policies, mechanisms, have been developed and discussed even criticized. A global coalition has been established with enormous number of member states. 60 states which are equal to 1/3 number of all states in the world still cannot defeat Terrorism. This “never-ending war” is a sign of a “never-ending fear” of terrorism. Eventually, the fear of threats and vulnerabilities demand a well-prepared idea and action to fight terrorism. Europe uses secular approaches to fight radicalism and extremism. For example secularism and secularization is a usual thing in France, Britain, Germany, and etc. Because Europeans are simply look at terrorism as a religion-based movement, so to fight terrorism, eradicating its religion aspects is a must.

Stacey Gutkowski in the article, “Secularism and the Politics of Risk: Britain’s Prevent Agenda, 2005-2009” stated that there is a connection between secular ideas and identification of risk. ‘Western’ secular discourse(s) have framed Islamist terrorism as slippery, uncontainable, mysterious and strange. Secularism and cultural secularity have contributed to the perceptions of danger emanating from the Muslim population (growth) in Western World (Europe, America, etc.).

Indonesia as the most Muslim population country is also one of the countries who also concerns toward terrorism and radicalization in Indonesia. Secularism and secularization discourses and agendas for Indonesia also have been discussed in mass media, social media, education institutions, NGOs, etc. The discourse lead up to one big question, do we really have to adopt the western way of fighting terrorism? Regarding to our national identity and circumstances, I personally believe that, secularism and secularization as the logic of risk on terrorism is not appropriate to be applied in Indonesia.

As a cognitive framework, "The Logic of Risk" is a response to the threat and/or vulnerability with a focus on the design of future control. This article will discuss four implications of the Logic of Risk on addressing the issue of terrorism in Indonesia. There are four implications of the Logic of Risk implementation, namely: 1) the separation of politics and actuality; 2) de-politicization of political issues; 3) the internationalization of security issues; and 4) the expansion of the securitization process.

First, the separation of political policy from actuality will trigger the lack of effectiveness and efficiency itself. Because the Logic of Risk rests on imagination instead of the predictions of the future which are more empirical and logical, Logic of Risks often creates policies (which are based on the calculation of [the perception toward] the risk) away from the existing actuality. Policy becomes illogical; since acceptability will manufacture preventive security policy that does not rely on the actuality could increase the popularity of the risk itself. The problem is political decisions or actions based on risk cannot be tested with actual events.

Examples of cases in Indonesia are the placement of the terrorism issue as a risk that needs an establishment of policies and specific programs such as "De-radicalization". If the government relied heavily on the imaginations of the risk (only), the Government would be inclined away from the actuality of radicalization and de-radicalization itself. As a result, the program does not allow for true de-radicalization. That is to say that: 1) there is something wrong in terms of both effectiveness (whether De-radicalization is the right policy?) and/or 2) one in terms of efficiency (whether De-radicalization running properly?).

Second, de-politicization of security policy by means of: 1) the objectification of threats, where the threats persuaded (pseudo calculation); 2) transliteration of individual human beings into categories; and 3) the negation of moral categories in the name of effectiveness and efficiency.

Examples of cases in Indonesia are the issuing lists of foundations, schools, and (Islamic education-based) institutions in Indonesia that are stamped as "terrorist nest". I don’t wish to further and deeper on discussing the validity of the manufacture of these lists especially the list which is made by certain Islamic organizations. People have to understand that the aspects of competition are palpable at this level. First thing that must be aware of is the "terrorist nest" stamp did not pass through valid and reliable process, because if it is valid of course the war against terrorism would be over long ago.

Secondly, since these lists are accordance with the rules of Logic of Risk theory—made on behalf of “assumptions”, “believes” and/or “allegations”—the categorization also must be made based on “assumptions”, “believes” and/or “allegations” too. Individuals or groups are “assumed”, “believed”, and/or “alleged” instead of “proved” as terrorist.

Thirdly, valid or not, those list and categorizations has offended everyone in the list. There is ethics and moral aspects which have been crashed in term of effectiveness and efficiency. I state that this is not effectiveness and efficiency reasoning, but a partial effectiveness and efficiency, pseudo effectiveness and efficiency.

I have a strong standing point that, “de-politicization is politicization by other means”. No one can guarantee that terrorists may be no longer under the guise of charities, institutions, “pesantren”, or schools, but may be under the pretext of Multi-Level Marketing, Vehicle Credit Business, baby-care center (posyandu), Football Club, and all the other things-fetched.

Third, Internalization of Global Security Issues. We can sort out more that this internalization can be divided into two levels: 1) international to the national level; and 2) the national level to the community.

First, it can be seen from trends in policies on terrorism after the publication/declaration of "War on Terror" by the United States through a speech by George W. Bush. Many states then pondered Bush's statement, "... you with us or against us ..." and eventually formulated a similar policy.

In the case of Indonesia, the policy on terrorism intense emerged following the Bali 1 bombings. Internalization of Global Security issues that can be tracked is about the similarities of Indonesian terrorism policy patterns with the Western countries. Internalization of global security issue looks at how Indonesia adopts the ideas and mechanisms that exist outside to be internalized into a set of collective ideas on Indonesia's policies, particularly in the field of terrorism. The Logic of Risk rests on the ideas construction. For this case, adopting secularism without critics by our national identity point of views is not adequate.

Second, internalization at the level of the community is an agenda to engage the public as an effort to securitize the issues. This internalization invites public as part of a shared responsibility. An example can be seen how the "Sishankamrata" doctrine associated with the combating terrorists and terrorism agenda in Indonesia. Civil society is also encouraged to play an active role on combating terrorism in Indonesia. At this point, our society understanding of terrorism must be enhanced and strengthened. To enhance and strengthen the society understanding of terrorism, we should go to the fourth implication which is: the Logic of Risk encourages securitization: formulating normal social-politics issues become a security concern.

Securitization is a must when the public as audience feels government should take responsive action or government feels the community need a responsive action about issues that have to be concerned as security problem.  Example in Indonesia, the securitization in education and socio-culture sector. The government considers that Indonesia education system should be free from radicalism and/or extremism values in order to manifest free-terrorism potential values in the society. Therefore, de-radicalization program then involves the education and socio-culture sector as a part of national security. The problem is what kind of education system? Should we adopt the western secular education system into our education system? We understand that Indonesia constitution is not a secular one. Our constitution stands on religious and humanist platform. Secularization and secularism are not our spirit on governance.

Indonesia is a country that tolerates and guarantees all ideological matters that is not come and goes out far from its contexts because out of the context is a radical and extremis characteristic. Secularization in Indonesia is too far away from the context of Indonesia’s essential aspects.

We need to get all religious prominent figures together in an effective and efficient discourse on humanity, government, and civilizations. The role of ulama’ is really important as the bridge and voices for Indonesians. Harmony between all religions in Indonesia will build a strong foundation for the country and also diminish all potential hatred thoughts and movements. Indonesia does not have to be a secular state to fight terrorism.