Challenging Islamist Populism in Indonesia through Catholic Youth Activism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a good article, well researched, well structured, engaging. I like the use of Bayat (2007), who is appropriately centred in the discussion, and the concept of Islamist populism is interesting here. Good use of quotes, which advance the argument.

I take issue with the framing, which needs to be redone. The central argument (as I understand it) is that ‘Islamist populism’ is a ‘threat’ (pp 7 & 11) – particularly to the continued articulation of Pancasila – and this is being countered at a grassroots level within Catholic youth activism. There seem to be certain in-built assumptions and binaries: Islamism vs moderate Islam (p 2); Islamism vs ‘ordinary people’ [or not representing them] (pp 2 and 3); Indonesian Islamism identifiable from rhetoric (p 3); Indonesian Islamism as unified within the country (pp 3-4); Islamists as engaging in an ‘anti-democratic push’ (p 5). Ultimately, I feel the framing buys into a ‘War on Terror’ rhetoric of over-simplifying Islamists, then comparing them to liberal Catholics. This framing is not adequately interrogated by the author.

Critical discussion needs to happen on the term Islamism and why you’re using it, because if you don’t, it looks as if you are using the term as a means of discrediting them – a point furthered by your implication that they do not ‘represent the will and voice of the Muslim people of Indonesia’, (p 2). Do Indonesian ‘Islamists’ call themselves by this term? What is their relationship with the term? Is it more often used against them by detractors (as it is in many other contexts)? Also, what about different groups and organisations – some Indonesian Islamists engage with democracy and some do not (for example, Hizb ut-Tahrir Indonesia). Are all Islamists therefore engaging in the same ‘anti-democratic push’ (p 5)? We need to know who is being 'countered' here.

I feel there is a very broad brush being applied in the paper, with Islamist parties, members and supporters treated in a potentially monolithic manner, which makes me question the authenticity of the discussion. I would worry, for instance, were I to see all right-wing populists treated in such a way within a European state context. The uncritical use of binaries between Islamism vs. ‘moderate Islam’; public vs. private division of religion; Islamism vs. ‘ordinary people’ needs urgently addressing.

You note that ‘we know from Bayat (2007) that the characteristics of Islamist populism differ from country to country’ (p 12), but I feel Indonesian Islamism is treated here as one, and as discernible entirely from their rhetoric. Bayat argues for ‘a more fluid and fragmented understanding’ of ‘the differentiated and changing disposition of such movements as Islamism’.  Therefore, there needs to more consideration in this paper of how to avoid this ‘static vision’ of Islamism. I feel that the author often accepts the notion of Islamism as comprised of ‘highly homogenous and coherent social units which are to be identified by the discourse of their ideologies’ – in direct opposition to Bayat’s view expressed in other works (Bayat 2005, Islamism and Social Movement Theory, p 891). For instance, the author states that ‘Islamist populism proposes there should be no separation between religion and state’ (6) but without adequate discussion on how this is articulated to a wide potential supporter base, it’s only used here as a way of demonstrating the secularity of Catholic activists. I’d also argue Bayat’s 2007 point about Islamist rule facing crisis where it has been put practice into practice might need more clarification post Arab Spring (Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey).

Generally, these are fundamental but easily fixed points. By setting up Indonesian Islamism as a singular problem/threat – identifiable through its discourse – that is being countered by ‘ordinary Indonesians’ and Catholic activists, the paper adopts a binary and reductionist framing that undermines some very interesting and important research. I'm recommending minor revisions but it's quite a fundamental problem in the paper. However, I'm sure it can be easily fixed and addressed through some additional discussion and reframing. 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I enjoyed reading the submitted article, as it reports in a an accurate way on the religious landscape in Indonesia, and the sometimes difficult interactions between majority and minority religious populations.

My main concerns are two. The first is methodological: even if the approach is qualitative, I miss any reference about how many among the 20 interviewed subjects did share an opinion or the other; i.e. whether the majority of them agreed about that curious mixing of faith and nationalism. I think this needs to be addressed.

Second concern is ideological, and connects with the former point. After witnessing in Europe the quite bad consequences of intermingling Catholicism and nationalism, I am not sure that the prospected solution might be the more promising in that context. Catholicism linked to nationalism has produced very ambiguous outcomes, and many should rather prevent future experiences in that same direction. This is a point the authors need to address in their discussion section.

Then, probably the authors are less aware of recent magisterium of Pope Francis in Fratelli tutti enciclical regarding convergence between religions. I find this instruction much more promissing and worthy to try in the Indonesian case. Perhaps the conlusion section could quote that issue.

Author Response

Please see attached our responses to both reviewer reports

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I find satisfactory the answers to my questions and how the author/s have addressed them in the new version.