Dealing with problematic NGOs<\/p>\n
By T. Mulya Lubis<\/p>\n
Controversy has lately arisen concerning the role which non-
\ngovernmental organizations (NGOs) are supposed to play in
\nIndonesia. In the following article, T. Mulya Lubis, chairman of
\nthe Center for Human Rights Studies, takes a look at the issue.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Coordinating Minister for Political Affairs and
\nSecurity Soesilo Soedarman has told the press that there are 32
\nproblem NGOs in Indonesia. The number is small compared to the
\ntotal number of NGOs which, according to the minister, reaches
\nsome 8,000.<\/p>\n
NGOs have been accused of dabbling too deeply into practical
\npolitics, with certain objectives in view. It has also been
\nquoted that many among them have received foreign aid without the
\ngovernment's permission. In this context, names such as the
\nFoundation of the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute, Indonesian
\nForum for Environment, the Indonesian Prosperous Labor Union, the
\nNew Masyumi and the new Indonesian Nationalist Party have been
\nmentioned.<\/p>\n
Although the problem NGOs are linked with their political
\nactivities, the matter has given rise to confusion and
\napprehension. The problem NGOs are made to seem inferior to
\ncorruptors and manipulators, who abuse their authority. This
\naccusation is not just, and has violated the principle of
\nassumption of innocence because it has become a political verdict
\nwhich will kill the problem NGOs. What have they actually done
\nwrong?<\/p>\n
The government should be more open and explain that the
\nempowerment of the community is not allowed. Or, it should
\nclearly say that \"freedom to associate and to assemble and to
\nstate one's opinion orally or in writing\", which is actually
\nguaranteed by Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution, cannot be
\nimplemented. If somebody desires to establish an NGO, the scope
\nof activities should not involve politics. This scope of
\nactivities is the monopoly of the government and its officials.
\nAlso, NGOs are not permitted to receive foreign aid, except with
\nthe government's approval. Those allowed to receive foreign aid
\nare only the government and private businessmen, although the
\namount of aid and offshore loans has become a heavy burden on us,
\npushing our debt service ratio to over 30 percent.<\/p>\n
The problem is, how far does foreign aid go to reach the
\npeople? It is said that the percentage of foreign aid failing to
\nreach its destination is staggering. Foreign aid channeled to our
\nNGOs is very small compared to the aid given to the government
\nand the private sector.<\/p>\n
Undeniably, since the presence of NGOs in the early 1970s, we
\nhave seen a growing awareness among our people with regard to
\nlaw, politics and social matters. The voices demanding change and
\nimprovement in the economic, political and legal systems, heard
\nclearly in various media, came from NGOs and workers in
\nassociation with NGOs, not from the political parties and the
\nfunctional group Golkar. Demands on democratization, human
\nrights, rule of law, gender justice and ecology salvation came
\npredominantly from NGOs. Everybody knows that the work of NGOs
\noften has political implications, such as the defense of
\ndislodged people, victims of pollution, victims of layoffs, etc.
\nTheirs is not the work of practical politicians. It does not
\nstand to reason to draw a clear-cut line between politics and
\nlaw, or politics and economics.<\/p>\n
Legally speaking, the government's statement on the problem
\nNGOs can be categorized as an infraction of the principle of the
\ndue process of law, because these NGOs have been sentenced
\nwithout their exercising the right to defend themselves. In the
\nconstitutional perspective, the verdict on the problem NGOs is
\nalready an attack on or at least a negation of the constitutional
\nright to associate. Furthermore, the government has violated the
\nprinciple of self-governing organizations that is regulated in
\neach organization, including many NGOs, which legally take the
\nform of foundations. So, to include foundations in the category
\nof mass organizations and make them subject to Law No. 8\/1985 on
\nmass organizations is a big error. There are laws on foundations,
\nand as long as there is no change in them, the government, which
\nshould also adhere to the law, is not allowed to violate the law.
\nEverywhere, the government is also a subject of the law and must
\nrespect the law.
\nArticle No. 1 of Law No. 8\/1985 seems to include all
\norganizations outside political parties, including Golkar,
\nlimited liability companies, state-owned companies and
\ncooperatives. But if the contents of said article are perused
\naccurately, there is doubt on the inclusion of foundations in the
\nscope of Law No. 8\/1985, particularly if one reads the
\nexplanation which clearly excludes \"cooperatives, limited
\nliability companies, etc,\" because these are subject to their own
\nlegal regime.<\/p>\n
Apparently, since the implementation of Law No. 8\/1985, the
\ngovernment realized this and therefore has shown restraint in
\ninvestigating the NGOs which are not mass organizations and are
\nmostly foundations. So, although Law No. 8\/1985 entitles the
\ngovernment to freeze and discharge mass organization board
\nmembers, because NGOs are difficult to categorize as mass
\norganizations, repressive measures cannot be taken. Our question
\nnow is: Why has the government taken a forceful stance and used
\nmuscle instead of reason?<\/p>\n
It is hard to deny that the government's accusation against
\nproblem NGOs is viewed as the arrogance of power, which is
\ndistrusting of the critical voices of the NGOs. The NGOs have
\nneither political power, nor firearms, nor abundant funds. These
\nNGOs seem to be effective because they work at the grass roots
\nlevel, express the voice of the heart, and appeal to a democratic
\nspirit for renewal. The NGOs' stance is clearly not in favor of a
\nstatus quo. But these NGOs are not radical rebels who could go
\nunderground. It is not wrong to say that the NGOs are critical
\npartners of the government. There is a legal place in our socio-
\npolitical order for the role of NGOs, a very historical place
\nbecause basically, this country also started from NGOs like Boedi
\nOetomo, Serikat Dagang Islam, etc.<\/p>\n
It would be wise for the government to recognize that the NGOs
\nhave an important share in the growth of this nation, and this
\nrole is not less important than that of the government, political
\nparties and the functional group Golkar. Basically, the NGOs are
\nchildren of this country, part of the nation's pluralistic
\nsociety.<\/p>\n
The writer is chairman of the Manila-based Regional Council
\nof Human Rights in Asia.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/dealing-with-problematic-ngos-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}