In Indonesia, small number of bigots can pretend to be "offended" and jail popular and effective presidential candidate. Hence they create disproportionate influence on Indonesian politics.
Small number of potentially violent protestors and opinion of a few judges can greatly and disproportionally affect political landscape of Indonesia for years and years to come.
There is a guy named Ahok that has been governor with 70% approval rating. This article is a summary of what I think is really going on. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Ahok was, and still is, a significant figure in Indonesia politic. He is currently jailed due to vague anti blasphemy laws in Indonesia. That prevents him from being candidate for next Indonesian's election.
Ahok managed Jakarta well. He listened to complains done by his people. People can use Qlue, an app made by his supporters, to complain about things that don't work right in his city
He is the only government officials like that. Sometimes people report problems happening on other provinces to him https://www.kaskus.co.id/thread/58b53322dac13e76678b4569/ahok-tertawa-saat-warga-mengadu-soal-banjir-di-bangka-kepada-dia/?ref=postlist-10&med=recommended_for_you . He just laugh and say that he'll contact the other provinces' governor.
Ahok basically eliminated corruption in Jakarta. He did it by using e-budgeting, an electronic system, where anyone proposing a bill can only do so through passwords. So no body can mark up prices of goods sold to Indonesian government anonymously.
It makes corruption almost impossible. There are rules that prevent companies to mark up stuffs sold to Indonesia.
Government budget have tons of left over. And yet the river is clean, the road's holes are gone, the poor got subsidy to buy meat (now gone) and school (now gone too). Jakarta have tons of "cash reserve" due to budget left overs.
To be honest, part of it is due to Jokowi, now president. But yea, he did very well to. Perhaps, even better.
However, he offended many corrupt officials that used to enjoy tons of money. I've heard stories about civil servants that were forced to divorce 2-3 of his wives because he no longer can steal people's money during Ahok's effective rule.
Unlike Jokowi, Ahok is more "blunt". When he saw people stealing or trying to steal money, he doesn't just prevent that from happening. He mocks and ridicules those politicians to the laugh of many people. Jokowi would have saved their face.
You see that picture? That is a proposal to spend $8.8 trilyun rupiahs, which is around $.66 billion to "improve understanding of Governor decision 168". The price was obviously heavily marked up.
That was recommended by the legislative branch. With 7 million Jakarta residents, it'll cost around $100 per person to "improve understanding".
Ahok wrote "Pemahaman nenek lu!" which means "Understanding my ass, to slash the bill". Basically he exposed the proposal to public and use pretty use rude language to those trying to propose it.
Before there was another $12 trilyun ($ .9billion) proposal to spend on uninterrupted power supply. The UPS were priced at $300k each, which is ridiculous. https://news.detik.com/berita/2843578/demi-dana-ups-rp-121-triliun-dprd-dki-ngotot-ajukan-angket-untuk-ahok http://www.tribunnews.com/metropolitan/2016/02/05/jadi-saksi-sidang-kasus-ups-ahok-sebut-nama-jokowi
Jokowi (now president) and Ahok didn't just let the corrupt cops handle the issue. They let the public knows about those nonsense budget proposals. They disagree with it. Because the budget must be approved by both the legislative and executive branch, and the legislative branch obviously want the proposals to get kick back, they did something innovative. Ahok and Jokowi simply choose not to approve the budget, which includes payment of legislative members of salary. After tons of negotiation, those budgets are gone.
People say how the legislative branch in Indonesia is corrupt, with Ahok and Jokowi, many people feel that their governments are in good hand, nevertheless
He was so popular he wanted to went to the election as independent candidate. People were collecting their signatures to elect him.
However, from the beginning the oligarch wants him down.
One day, Ahok talked to some fishermen about his program of farming Krapu fish.
The krapu fish fisherman have concerns. Will Ahok program continue if he is no longer governor? Ahok jokingly said of course. Even if he is no longer governor, it will continue.
Ahok reiterate that (under democracy) they have right to pick governor for any reason, including religions. Even if they're being lied to by using Al maidah 51 or whatever. They are under no obligation to vote for him, nor should they worry if his program would fail should he fail to be governor.
Al maidah 51 is a verse in quran that says that muslims cannot pick non muslims. Ahok is a chinese christians.
In Indonesia, the chinese and christians are richer than most muslims. There are many factors. For example, muslims would save up money for 10 years and use it to go to their pilgrimate in mekah. So muslims in Indonesia is like whites in middle age. They're just not into money as much.
The farmers laugh. Of course they don't mind choosing non muslim leaders. They did it all the time. And now there is this strange theory that we can't. And quite obvioulsy Ahok was a much better governor than others.
Also many Ahok followers do not interpret being lied to by using Al Maidah 51 to mean that the interpretation of Al Maidah 51, not to pick Christian Ahok, is a lie.
Many knows or at least think that Ahok reduces corruption. Many think that corrupt people use Al Maidah 51 to get elected when so that they can latter defraud and steal people money. And those corrupt people uses Al Maidah 51 to get elected. That can also satisfy "being lied to by using al maidah 51"
Ahok, wanting transparency, post all speech on youtube, like usual. Those who hate him "fish" for something among those videos and found those few sentences out of tons and tons of video material.
Ahok's political opponent try to spin this out.
One guy spread his video and eliminate the word using. So Ahok is said to have spoken "being lied to ... by Al Maidah 51". This causes an uproar.
The issue cleared up.
However, large number of demonstration, happens. There is, after all these years, a momentum, a chance, to bring down this too popular governor.
Many of the demonstrators were imported from outside Java because those who are in Jakarta have seen Ahok's performance and were less likely to demonstrate.
The demonstration is close to being anarchy and large amount of money is spend to ensure it doesn't happen. The protestors can cause damage, but if police shot, it may cause problems.
Now, this is what's interesting.
Basically, Ahok haters, campaign in mosques. They said that the word "using" doesn't matter. By saying that people are being lied to by using Al Maidah 51, Ahok have said that the Ulama, that's using those verse to tell muslims not to vote for non muslims were lying. Ahok never said that. To the opposite he said it's okay not to vote for him. But his haters claim that it's what Ahok said imply.
There are many people, including those who wanted Ahok death (yap literally) also said the same thing. There are records of many people saying that people use religions to lie. There are cases where people do lie, defraud people using religions. Some of the famous ones are first travel and abu tour.
https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2018/01/18/13112431/setelah-first-travel-abu-tours-gagal-berangkatkan-27000-jemaah-umrah many Ahok supporters say that what Ahok claims is similar to cases of those. People do using religions to defraud people. Defrauding is just a sample of lying.
However the law is a "delik aduan". It means that it's a crime, or processed, only if someone reports it. So if no body gets offended, it's not a problem. But obviously, if you're running for an election, you will have many people that have incentives to pretend they're getting offended so you're out of a race.
Of course, most of the time, it doesn't get big. After all, unless the defendant is running for election, who would bother report such things?
Indonesia have an unwritten rules not to charge any candidate during election days. All criminal cases are postponed till election is over. However, due to large demonstration, they broke the rule.
Those who wants Ahok jailed (or death) claim that a christian shouldn't comment on other religions. And that it is not "appropriate" for a government employee to says that on a speech. (I think it's actually appropriate but that's another story).
Basically they use every minute differences to explain why Ahok is guilty while many other similar acts are not blasphemy.
Ahok supporters think that the charge is politically motivated. They think the whole thing is bullshit. It's like trying to debate whether homo ouision or homoi ousion is the right doctrine in Christianity. Quite obviously, even if one is correct, it's beyond the capability of typical people to differentiate.
Ahok ask for muslim cleric from Egypt to testify on his behalf, on whether muslims can vote for non muslims.
However, MUI block the cleric from testifying, saying that Indonesian clerics, is competent enough. The issue is of course not of competency. A muslim cleric from outside indonesia do not have vested interests on preventing Ahok from getting elected.
Ahok is then "charged" with blasphemy.
The case dropped Ahok rating. He lost the gubernatorial election 43% vs 57% to Anies.
The judge says that muslims indeed "cannot vote for non muslim leaders" and that "No body can lie using quran" and sentence Ahok to 2 years in jail. Need sources here, but that's basically the reasoning.
Ahok wanted to appeal. However, he realized the kind of shit he's into. The laws are so vague. The charge was politically motivated. This is not the regular "This is obviously a crime, did he did it". It's more like, "He did it, is it a crime?"
And the law is "delik aduan". It means that people are charged when someone complaints. Hence, the vagueness is inherent in the law itself.
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/26937/is-there-any-delik-aduan-like-laws-in-the-west
Those who report the crime must have been "victim" of such crime. However, this doesn't help a lot during election. In case of blasphemy charge, anyone that have the same religion with the religion that is allegedly insulted can pretend he is offended and file a report. Obviously, during election, there are many people that are not happy with any candidate . That people can pretend to be offended and get what he wants far more effectively by reporting a popular candidate to cops rather than merely by voting.
Large numbers of arguments are made by both side whether what Ahok did constitute "insulting religions" or not.
One strange angle is that "blashphemy" in Islam is not merely "insulting islam". It includes people having "different" interpretation of how to do a verse, that disagree with what islamic leaders want.
Of course, those islamic leaders interpret islam in a way that make them rich. Those who disagree with them are called "splitting the ummah".
Recently Ahok asked for judicial review from supreme courts. Both his supporters and detractors makes another demonstration. What's at stake is not his punishment that's almost over. What's at stake is that convicted criminals cannot be president and Ahok is still a very popular vice presidential candidate because of his (perceived) effectiveness and cleanliness in government.
At the heart of the issue is that Ahok eligibility to be Indonesian next vice president is finally decided not by votes but by a relatively few demonstrators and a few judges based on some very vague laws.
Obviously having such laws in Indonesia is controversial. The secular do not think blasphemy should be a crime in the first place. Many moderate people in Indonesia think that blasphemy laws should be there to prevent direct deliberate insult toward religions and not simply things that Ahok did.
Now, any political parties want to revise or abolish the law? Because obviously there are at least 10%-20% Indonesians that want it gone.
Ahok is still a significant figure in Indonesian politic despite his jailing.