This chapter takes a closer look at the response to NU's return to politics and Abdurrahman Wahid's rise to the presidency on the part of (1) NU's 30th National Congress (Muktamar); (2) the PBNU and other official NU bodies; (3) Wahid himself; and (4) NU's civil society activists. While NU continued to display the pluralism and complexity that had been its defining characteristics for many decades, to some extent one may observe a weakening of the civil society rhetoric and values promoted before Wahid became president. Especially in the case of the civil society activists, we see a return of the age-old modernist–traditionalist themes.

THE RESPONSE OF THE 30TH MUKTAMAR

In November 1999, one month after Wahid's rise to the presidency, NU held its 30th Muktamar at the Hidayatul Mubtadi'in pesantren in Lirboyo, East Java. This was a pivotal point in contemporary NU history, not only because delegates would elect a replacement for Wahid, who had led NU for the past 15 years, but also because NU would have to make a decision that concerned its own identity. That is, it would have to decide whether to continue to implement Khittah ’26 and permit its members to be active in any political party, or formally endorse PKB as NU's only party. The latter would in effect signify a return to a political identity for NU. In the months leading up to the Muktamar, this issue was discussed at various seminars and preliminary meetings.

Discussions on Khittah ’26 before the Muktamar

From July to September 1999, the PBNU held a series of seven seminars around the country to seek public input on topics that would be dealt with at the Muktamar. The topics covered were the role of women in Islam; the 1999 elections; strategic planning; Islam and democracy; economic issues; cultural issues; and civil society building.1 After each seminar, PBNU committee members were supposed to incorporate the results of the debate into a set of recommendations on each topic, to be discussed and approved at the Muktamar. But in reality, I found little evidence that the range of views expressed at the seminars were integrated into the Planning Committee's final list of recommendations, which were produced almost entirely behind closed doors by a handful of members.