RELIGIOUS SEGREGATION AND CITIZENSHIP: Case Study on Muslim-Only Community in Yogyakarta

Abstract

In April 2019, a Catholic painter, Slamet Jumiarto rejected from Karet village in Bantul, Yogyakarta. The local chiefs refused to give living permission to Slamet family because the authority claimed that the village is only for Muslim. The Subdistrict Head argues that Slamet should respect this decision because it was the consensus among the residents and consider as customary rights. This argument put the Muslim community in the village as the indigenous community who has the right to protect their area segregated based on customary rights. Meanwhile, in the urban area, the Muslim-only housing complex becomes more popular and have not been regulated by the state. Unlike the Slamet case in Bantul, Muslim-only housing as gated community exclude other religious adherents to live in the complex. Following these segregated Muslim community, I am going to analyze how this phenomenon may or may not compromise our democracy. In this paper, I will examine whether segregation in Karet Village case or Muslim-Only housing can be justified. Then, I will also address how the state should enforce the equal rights of the citizen to reside in a decent house based on the principle of justice and inclusion.

Residential segregation done by Muslim as a gated community or restrictive policy like in Karet resident is not legitimate because their separation does not enforce positive segregation.  They could also bring potential harm that cost social harmony in the future. Moreover, to deal with the issue of residential segregation, the state should initiate changes of policy on modern housing development, uses a social mechanism which increase social interaction and creates procedure that makes the resident actively participate in governing their neighborhood with the awareness that every unit in the community is interrelated and should affirm the principles of non-discrimination.