Measure Tolerance

The Indonesian public certainly still remembers, the SETARA Institute Tolerant City Index survey in 2017 that assessed the tolerance index of cities in Indonesia, where Manado City together with nine other cities received the highest scores while DKI Jakarta with nine other cities also carried the lowest scores.

The presentation of such research is actually a new step taken by SETARA in describing the conditions of freedom of religion and belief (KBB) in Indonesia. In advance, this institution has been known as one of the consistent and vocal voices highlighting KBB violations. Every year, SETARA issues notes about KBB violations in every region in Indonesia. The figure is indeed high and even experienced a significant increase three years ago. Similar research conducted by CRCS UGM and Wahid Institute also confirms this high number.

The government or a number of institutions which are highlighted for violations or omissions often feel cornered. They generally criticize institutions such as SETARA only to highlight the negatives (in the sense that only violations and acts of violence) do not want to raise the good things that already exist, or the good role of the government in fostering harmony.

In fact, in terms of human rights, the steps of these institutions are appropriate, because the negative character of freedom of religion / belief makes it a family of political civil liberties, which are measured negatively (not fulfilling rights as the main measure).

However, the SETARA alternative by presenting a tolerance index is expected to answer the objections. In the tolerance index survey, SETARA set four parameters as a measurement framework for measurement, namely: city government regulations, government actions, social regulations (practices among city residents) and the religious demographics of the city area.

The four parameters actually modify 3 parameters compiled by Brian J. Grim and Roger Finke (2006) to measure the level of religious freedom / degree of tolerance of a country. The three proposals of Grim and Finke are: favoritism or privilege of the government to certain religious groups, government regulations that restrict religious freedom and social regulations that restrict religious freedom.

This parameter actually still carries the negative rights paradigm. However, the SETARA Tolerant City Index also continues to examine the positive actions of the city government in promoting tolerance, both stated in policies, official statements, responses to events, and building a culture of tolerance in the community. So, more than just criticism of things that are wrong, the government and society can also see good things that need to be developed as a reference.

In a more moderate form the Ministry of Religion as the governing agency in the field of religion has also established a standard measure for the compilation of a index of religious harmony in a comprehensive manner with a national standard.

The harmony index in question is formed from three major indicators, namely tolerance, equality, and cooperation. Indicators of tolerance represent the dimensions of mutual acceptance, respect / respect for differences. Equality, reflecting the desire to protect each other, provides equal opportunities without prioritizing superiority. The collaboration illustrates the active involvement of joining other parties and giving empathy and sympathy to other groups in the social, economic, cultural and religious dimensions.

In addition to the Ministry of Religion, Bappenas in recent years also compiled the Indonesian Democratic Index (IDI) which also included religious freedom as a variable / indicator of index measurement. Of the 4 civil liberties variables in IDI, freedom of religion / belief is reduced to 3 indicators: written rules, actions of government officials, and threats of community violence. Reports such as IDI certainly have another advantage because the KBB issue is associated with broader social aspects in the community.

These methods are indeed more macro-valued, for a comprehensive development and improvement framework. But the narrower research turned out to be able to give other colors that are less legible by the methods above.

The Ma'arif Institute's research, held from October to December 2017, for example, is a more narrow example by highlighting symptoms of religious extremism among Indonesian students. In line with that, the Wahid Foundation in the same year chose youth and youth who used social media as research targets. Both are very critical alarms highlighting the high tendency to engage in extreme religion and reject diversity in our youth.

More narrowly, P3M and the National House during September-October 2017 surveyed Friday sermon material in the mosque-