Abolition of permit act shows govt cognizant<\/p>\n
The government is planning to abolish the notorious gathering
\npermits which have allowed a number of discussions and cultural
\nperformances to be banned in recent months. Noted political
\nscientist Amir Santoso looks at the implications of the scrapping
\nof the policy, which is based on Article 510 of the Criminal
\nCode.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The government's plan to abolish gathering
\npermits later this year will have a number of results.<\/p>\n
First, the government will take a more relaxed attitude. It
\nwill be able to concentrate on more urgent development issues
\ninstead of busying itself with image-building, both from the pro-
\ngovernment group as well as opposition groups inside and outside
\nthe country. At least, the decision will mean that the opposition
\nwill lose one item from its list of grievances against the
\ngovernment.<\/p>\n
Second, the confusion among subordinate government officials
\nwill be abolished. They are currently caught up in a difficult
\nsituation. If they did not issue a permit, they are blamed by the
\ncommunity, but if they do so and a problem occurs, they are
\npunished by their superiors.<\/p>\n
Third, one of the sources of graft can be eliminated. Permits
\noften involved an amount of money paid by applicants to officials
\nwith the intention of speeding up the issuance of the permits.<\/p>\n
Fourth, the government and the community will learn from each
\nother to understand differences of opinion and this is a very
\nimportant point in the democratization process.<\/p>\n
Fifth, the settlement of conflicts through an authoritarian
\napproach can be replaced by legal approach.<\/p>\n
Conflicts between persons or between institutions arising in
\ndiscussions must be settled through the judiciary. If a
\ndiscussion or lecture participant is considered as having
\ninsulted another party, the offended party is allowed to sue the
\nperson concerned. Let the court decide.<\/p>\n
Thus, all parties, both the government and the community, will
\neach learn to take responsibility and to show restraint in using
\ntheir freedom.<\/p>\n
This should correctly also apply to freedom of the press. If
\nthe press make criticism without supporting data or is considered
\nas having insulted another party, including the government, the
\npress should be brought to court.<\/p>\n
The revocation of gathering permits, when it turns into
\nreality, will be proof of the success of external and internal
\npressure for greater freedom of expression.<\/p>\n
External pressure may come in the form of an appeal from
\nanother country passed on orally, as well as in writing in their
\nmass media. Such external pressure becomes more effective if it
\nis conveyed in a persuasive way and not in the form of a threat.
\nIt has often been shown that demands accompanied by threats or
\ninsults have been clearly opposed by the Indonesian government,
\nas in the case of the dissolution of IGGI (Inter-Government Group
\non Indonesia) a few years ago.<\/p>\n
However, in comparison, I think the internal pressures
\noriginating from the government's own circles were of greater
\ninfluence. Government leaders today, both from the 1945
\ngeneration and the younger generation understand the necessity of
\ndedication to the people's interests. The 1945 generation
\nconsists of those who have always felt indebted to the people who
\naided them during the revolution toward freedom. Giving more
\nfreedom to the people is one of their wishes.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, the young leaders are people who have
\nacquired a wish for democracy during their studies, both at home
\nand abroad. This also applies to Armed Forces circles. A growing
\nnumber of Armed Forces members now have the spirit of democracy
\nand are furious about all forms of power abuse. They are becoming
\nincreasingly open towards the democratization process through
\ntheir education, inside and outside the country, and through the
\nmass media.<\/p>\n
Internal pressure, which is not less important, takes the form
\nof opinions or suggestions voiced by writers, intellectuals or
\ninstitutions of learning, which are now given the freedom to
\nexpress their opinions.<\/p>\n
I have seen that the government has adopted many of these
\nopinions and suggestions, especially when these have been
\nsubmitted in a sympathetic way through persuasive means.<\/p>\n
Thus, the decision to revoke the requirement for gathering
\npermits proves that the government is in fact responsive towards
\nthe people's demands, provided that the demands are not voiced in
\nan aggressive or defiant manner.<\/p>\n
The writer is lecturer of political science at the University
\nof Indonesia and director of Center for Policy and Development
\nStudies.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/abolition-of-permit-act-shows-govt-cognizant-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}