Indonesia—and the world—is currently uninterested in discussing its national economic system. Although the global halal economy is gaining ground, and Islamic banking is positively appreciated in Europe, to date, no modern country has comprehensively implemented Sharia economics as a national economic system. Existing practice shows that Sharia economics is more developed as a sectoral approach and policy instrument within a pragmatic market economy and state framework.
Several non-Muslim countries, such as the UK, Japan, and China, have adopted Sharia instruments; issuing sukuk (Islamic bonds), establishing Sharia banks, and also promoting the halal industry. This is purely rational-economic, devoid of Islamic ideology. Here, Sharia economics is separated from the economic system and treated as a mere financial and industrial product. Sharia economics is successful as a sector, but weak as a state system. Sharia elements are implemented partially, sectorally, or symbolically. Therefore, the important question is not which countries implement it, but to what extent are they willing to allow Sharia principles to transform their economic power structures?
Political economists have long argued that modern economic systems are hybrid systems. There is no pure liberalism, pure socialism, or single ideological system. Countries generally choose a combination of market mechanisms, the role of the state, and social values, based on their history, political structure, and national interests.
The Islamic Economic System, or Sharia Economic System, is more comprehensive, extending beyond the role of the state and the market. It encompasses the formal prohibition of usury (riba), zakat (alms) and waqf (waqf) as social instruments, and the Islamic financial system.
In Muslim countries, the systems used vary depending on their political choices and history. Resource-based state capitalism (Rentier State) is found in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait; post-colonial (pragmatic) mixed economies in Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, and Indonesia; and Islamic socialism in Iran (post-1979), Libya (Gaddafi era), and Sudan (certain periods) (Awan et al., 2023). Authoritarian capitalism with sharia symbols was implemented in Turkey (early AKP era) and Malaysia (post-1990s) (Khotimah, 2024).
Why didn't they implement Sharia Economics as a system? The answer lies in the political constraints of power, because Sharia economics—even Pancasila Economics in the case of Indonesia—demands rent-sharing restrictions, asset distribution, and structural justice. This is extremely threatening to the economic and political elite. Therefore, the state plays it safe: choosing the "symbol" of Sharia, without structural implications.
At the global level, Sharia economics as an economic system is inconsistent because the global economy operates under the laws of capitalism (international trade, the financial system, foreign investment). The academic landscape is also immature, with no single agreement on how a "Sharia state" will regulate taxes, labor markets, international trade, and so on. Classical fiqh is understood as having emerged in a pre-modern economy and is considered outdated for a modern macro system. Similarly, social and pluralism barriers exist, as many countries are Muslim, multiethnic, and multifaith. If conditions are not conducive, the Islamic economy will be perceived as an exclusive economy.
However, the general global trend toward a hybrid-pragmatic economic system should be seen as an opportunity. The global economy following the 2008 global crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and geopolitical crises is moving not toward a single economic system, but toward systemic pragmatism—countries choosing a mix of market, state, and community based on national interests. There is a resurgence in the role of the state, but the market remains dominant. The state has not abandoned capitalism, but the market is no longer trusted to fully manage crises. Therefore, it can be said that classical liberal economics has lost its absolute legitimacy, but has not been replaced by a new ideological system. Capitalism remains, but it is more nationalistic, protectionist, and state-controlled (read: neo-industrial policy or strategic capitalism).
Therefore, efforts to establish the Islamic economy as a national system have very little chance of success. The realistic approach is to make the Islamic economy a corrective and operational pillar, especially for the people's economy. The experience of Muslim countries shows that Islamic economics is easier to implement as a set of moral and sectoral instruments than as a complete national economic system, because implementing the system requires changes in power structures and global integration that countries are rarely willing to undertake.
*****
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar