Interpreting the Ideas of H.O.S. Tjokroaminoto and Ali Shariati to Address the Nation’s Crisis
By:
Masduki Duryat
( Rector of the Al-Amin Institute of Islamic Studies, Indramayu )
A wealthy nation does not necessarily guarantee the prosperity of its people. An operational democracy does not automatically ensure equality. Furthermore, the increasing visibility of religion in the public sphere does not necessarily translate into a force for liberation. Herein lies the paradoxical nature of Indonesia’s challenges: development continues, yet inequality persists; power changes hands, yet practices of domination remain; piety is displayed, yet justice is frequently left behind. The nation’s problems are not merely an economic crisis, but also a crisis regarding the distribution of power, moral responsibility, and the alignment of interests.
In this context, the ideas of H.O.S. Tjokroaminoto and Ali Shariati warrant a re-examination. Both offer a perspective that Islam should not remain merely a set of ritual doctrines; rather, it must serve as an ethical foundation and a transformative force for establishing social justice.
*Tjokroaminoto: Islamic Socialism and the Critique of Greed*
Through his work *Islam and Socialism*, Tjokroaminoto sought to formulate a vision of social justice rooted in *tawhid* (the oneness of God). He proposed three essential principles: freedom, equality, and brotherhood. For him, Islamic Socialism does not entail a total rejection of private property; instead, it serves as a critique of egoism, materialism, and the accumulation of wealth that disregards the interests of society (Tjokroaminoto, 2018).
This concept embodies a fundamental critique of capitalism, which prioritizes profit as its primary orientation. When wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, while the majority faces limited access to education, decent employment, and resources, the issue is not merely one of income disparity, but of structural injustice. A study by Prasetyo, Suhardini, and Hayati (2025) asserts that Tjokroaminoto’s philosophy posits that ownership carries moral limits and social responsibilities.
Consequently, the concept of *tauhid* (divine oneness) must entail social consequences. If all human beings are equally servants of God, no individual should ever be treated as a mere tool for the interests of others.
*Ali Shariati: Religion as an Energy for Liberation*
Ali Shariati offers a sharper critique of religion that has lost its revolutionary potential. In his view, religion can serve as a force for liberation, yet it can also be transformed into an instrument to legitimize power. Shariati distinguishes between religion that fosters consciousness and resists injustice, and religion that serves to justify the status quo (Shariati, 1972).
The concept of *mustadh’afin*—the oppressed—is central here. They are not merely objects of pity, but subjects who must attain awareness, rights, and the power to transform their circumstances. Meanwhile, the idea of the *rausyanfikr*, or “enlightened intellectual,” challenges intellectuals to avoid becoming trapped within an academic ivory tower. Intellectuals must engage with the suffering of society, dismantle structures of domination, and link their knowledge to social responsibility (Rosman & Radzi, 2021).
Shariati warns that a form of religiosity insensitive to oppression risks losing its ethical substance.
*From Philosophy to a National Agenda for Justice*
Tjokroaminoto and Shariati share a common ground: the concept of *tauhid* must give rise to liberation, equality, and a commitment to the well-being of humanity. However, social justice cannot be achieved merely through speeches, political slogans, or religious symbols. It must be translated into policies that can be scrutinized: budgets that favor the people, quality education, labor protection, the eradication of corruption, the strengthening of the grassroots economy, and transparency in the exercise of power.
In the context of Indramayu—a major food-producing region—the question of justice becomes concrete: do farmers enjoy a level of well-being commensurate with their contributions? Who truly benefits the most from the food supply chain? Do development and industrialization expand public welfare, or do they instead create new forms of inequality? These questions must be addressed through data, policy evaluation, and citizen participation.
For political parties—including the PKB—these ideas serve as both an ideological and a moral test. Politics should be an instrument of service, not merely an arena for the pursuit of power. A commitment to the people cannot be measured by rhetoric alone; it must be evidenced by tangible changes in the distribution of opportunities, resources, and power.
*Conclusion*
Social justice is not a gift bestowed by those in power; it is a right of the people and an obligation of the state. Tjokroaminoto taught that *tauhid* (the oneness of God) must give rise to freedom, equality, and brotherhood. Shariati asserted that religion must awaken consciousness and liberate human beings from structures of oppression.
The most fundamental question for this nation is not how often justice is invoked, but rather how courageously injustice is dismantled. For religion, devoid of a commitment to social justice, risks becoming nothing more than a mere formality, intellectuality without courage becomes merely an ornament, and politics without justice loses its moral legitimacy.
Social justice must serve as the benchmark for the success of development, the maturity of democracy, and the sincerity of religious commitment.
Indramayu, November 8, 2026
—–
