Indonesia
English
The Concept of Gender-Just Pluralism
When discussing “gender-just pluralism,” we need to clarify the logic behind it, which also illustrates the position, limitations, and direction […]
When discussing “gender-just pluralism,” we need to clarify the logic behind it, which also illustrates the position, limitations, and direction of this writing. Gender justice, like the broader concept of justice, especially in the modern context, is a subject of political ethics encompassing both political (state) and normative (legal) institutions. Thus, discussing justice entails examining power relations within the framework of state and legal authority; more specifically, discussing gender justice involves addressing political and legal power relations predicated on the assumption of domination by one gender over another. Gender justice, in general, remains a political problem, exhibiting both monistic and pluralistic features. Political pluralism (and legal pluralism) does not inherently promise better gender justice than monistic-authoritarian politics. Therefore, “gender-just pluralism” does not operate on the assumption that pluralism is problematic for gender justice while monism is not; instead, it solely departs from the factual-contextual reality of post-reform Indonesia, where political pluralism is notably strong, manifesting in regional autonomous powers and legal pluralism through diverse, specific, and sometimes inconsistent regional regulations (Perda) vis-à-vis the Constitution. The reality of political pluralism (and law, hereinafter referred to as political pluralism, intending to encompass law as well) is an unavoidable consequence of reform.
Given the brief description above, it is evident that the focus of this article is a study of political phenomenology rather than a cultural or sociological analysis. Political phenomenology is tasked with examining political phenomena—in this case, sociological and cultural pluralism that is deeply embedded in political pluralism—subsequently attempting to dismantle the underlying assumptions and reveal its intended direction. The indicators employed are the results of the dialectic between democracy—which addresses common interests—and human rights (HAM)—which concern individual interests (including group rights). This standpoint also reveals its limitations, namely, that the gender justice under consideration is situated within a political context, rather than an ethnographic, cultural, moral, or religious one. For instance, when criticizing the practice of siphoning in Timor, it is not done in the spirit of clashing external values with the internal values of the concerned community, but rather viewed through the lens of women as citizens entitled to the same and equal rights to life as men, and as autonomous and sovereign subjects in the sense that “they must never be tools for purposes outside themselves.” Similarly, if this article addresses the issue of injustice related to polygamy, the focus is not on the sacred verses that justify the practice and then critique it, but rather on the practice itself. This article does not engage in a contestation of scriptural interpretation or theological debates, but instead examines practices based on political and legal pluralism that conflict with the ideals of common interest in a democratic state, where the rights of each individual are neither superior nor inferior to those of others.
Thus, in the name of the collective rights of a community, the individual rights of women are not automatically sacrificed, as there are still general guidelines within the framework of democracy that maintain common interests, where the rights of every citizen are guaranteed and protected. It is also clear that the direction of this article is to contribute to the practice of political pluralism that places justice as the main agenda, especially justice for women within the socio-cultural and socio-economic frameworks that are often neglected and marginalized. Thus, on the one hand, this article promotes gender justice within the political framework; on the other hand, when politics itself is not accommodating to gender justice, this article also serves to critique such political practices and provide suggestions for change.
