Mapping Indonesia's legal reform<\/p>\n
By Meuthia Ganie-Rochman<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): How do we kick off legal reform in Indonesia?
\nThe whole system looks messy. The court system is still widely
\nregarded as a state-run mafia. The police as the investigating
\nauthority are considered incompetent and lacking credibility.<\/p>\n
The reform era has inherited a legal system which is abused by
\nthe authorities for their personal advantage. The whole system
\nhas been virtually untouched and still lives for itself.<\/p>\n
The legal system suffers weaknesses in principles, orientation
\nand institutions. Before the outset of reform, it lacked a human
\nrights dimension and did not endorse equality. The legal system
\ndid not facilitate economic vibrancy.<\/p>\n
Many laws are incomplete, confusing, and inconsistent. The
\nstructure of authority does not encourage transparency and does
\nnot ensure justice.<\/p>\n
Now the government, the legislature and civil society
\norganizations are busy in their efforts to bring about legal
\nreform. These efforts include the anticorruption law and the
\nsetting up of bodies such as the National Ombudsman Commission
\nand the Commission to Investigate Officials' Wealth.<\/p>\n
However, we must first look at the goals of legal reform in
\norder to be able to identify its direction, actors and
\norientation.<\/p>\n
In modern times, the ideal aim of a legal system is to assure
\norder, justice and human rights and to create public welfare.
\nThese goals also include the dimensions of procedure and
\nfacilitation. In practice, legal reform must define its less
\nabstract goals and determine which ones are more urgent than
\nothers.<\/p>\n
So far, the legal reform programs since the start of reform
\nhave touched on all aspects, although with different emphases
\nbeing applied. With regard to substance, the stress has been on a
\nreassertion of the principles of human and political rights. As
\nregards the institutional aspect, the process has changed the
\nrelationship between the legislature, the executive and the
\njudiciary, as indicated by the setting up of new bodies.<\/p>\n
To assess whether all of these efforts are proceeding in the
\nright direction, one must check their relevancy to the country's
\nmain need -- economic recovery.<\/p>\n
This must be achieved in two basic ways: increasing economic
\nactivity and saving resources from further \"leakage\". Investors
\nare hesitant to come here because the state is incapable of
\nmaintaining order and security, its structure of authority is
\nobscure, and because of its lack of orientation.<\/p>\n
In fact, the position of the state in dealing with the various
\ngroups who make both justified and unjustified demands of the
\nbusiness community is being questioned.<\/p>\n
Despite the 1999 anticorruption law, Indonesia remains among
\nthe most corrupt countries in the world.<\/p>\n
The problem lies mostly in the state itself, which is very
\nweak. Some bureaucrats argue that the cause is lack of money
\nsince the crisis. But the state is losing more crucial things:
\nleadership, orientation, and the capacity to integrate itself.
\nThere is no longer a layer of national leaders pushing reform,
\nstep by step.<\/p>\n
From the orientation aspect, there is a strong tendency for
\nthe political elite to shrivel the meaning of democracy.<\/p>\n
None of the political elite are willing to give up control
\nover the state's economic resources. Resources are being
\nquarreled over in a bid to secure their positions.<\/p>\n
Effective steps need to be taken. Firstly, the procedures,
\nstructure of authority, and evaluation of the legal institutions
\nmust allow both internal control and public scrutiny.<\/p>\n
Secondly, given the attitude of the political elite, the
\nprocess must involve civil society groups to watch over the
\nsystem, take part in its design, and participate in the law-
\nmaking process and the designing of the new system.<\/p>\n
Laws can only be meaningful if people feel the need to follow
\nthe rules. For example, in the business world, people must
\nperceive that the law protects contracts, puts a halt to frauds,
\nand simplifies relations. Legal reform, therefore, is a process
\nthat involves people. They are the ground upon which the meaning
\nof justice and the rule of law are contended.<\/p>\n
Third, legal reform needs supporting institutions to give
\ncredible assessments and information about the parties involved.
\nSuch supporting institutions include accountants, appraisers,
\ncredit rating services, securities regulators, company and
\nproperty registries, the private bar, private investigators, and
\nthe press. Some of these institutions play a monitoring role.<\/p>\n
Fourth, the politics of civil society must be part of the
\nprocess. This means strengthening civil organizations in the
\nshort term, and civil society in the long term through public
\npolicies.<\/p>\n
The government should not be expected to take the initiative;
\nthe civic groups have a better understanding of their own needs.<\/p>\n
Fifth, developing cooperation between the government and civic
\norganizations in the process of legal reform. Cooperation in
\nselected areas, such as making the Supreme Court the catalyst of
\nchange, would give greater assurance.<\/p>\n
In doing so, a new relationship based on greater trust, would
\nbe constructed between the courts and the public at large.<\/p>\n
Common strategic efforts are more likely to succeed than
\nfragmented efforts.<\/p>\n
The writer is a sociologist at the University of Indonesia.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/mapping-indonesias-legal-reform-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }