Marzuki Darusman: If I ran the rights body ...<\/p>\n
By Lela E. Madjiah<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): He strikes one as careful but assertive, calm
\nbut passionate, intelligent but innocent, and a very attentive
\nlistener. But Marzuki Darusman, 50, does not make a perfect host.
\nHe didn't offer me a drink during our two-and-a-half-hour
\nconversation on Wednesday.<\/p>\n
This came as a surprise, the more so because he is from a
\nfamily which attaches a lot of importance to hospitality. After
\nall, his father, Suryono Darusman, is a retired diplomat, and a
\nreputable one too.<\/p>\n
But Marzuki, deputy chief of the National Commission on Human
\nRights, had more important things on his mind than the fact that
\nhis interviewer was dying of thirst. One thing is the upcoming
\nelection of the commission's new chairman and rumors of his
\nappointment to this post to replace the late Ali Said. The other
\ntwo strong candidates are A.A. Baramuli and Munawir Sjadzali.
\nAnother important issue is the commission's much-awaited final
\nreport on the July 27 riots.<\/p>\n
We agreed to focus on his personal life, but ended up
\ndiscussing human rights, politics and democracy instead. It is
\neasier talking to him about those issues than about his hobbies,
\nreading, playing chess for the Darusman Cup and classical music.
\nEasier than talking about his future -- \"No, I'm far from well-
\noff!\". He earns a living by running a consultancy firm from a
\nsmall office in Kartika Chandra.<\/p>\n
Born in Bogor on Jan. 26, 1945, Marzuki is the eldest of five
\nsiblings. His wife, Irmayanti, was a fellow student at
\nParahyangan University in Bandung, where he studied International
\nLaw. Earlier he had dropped out -- twice -- from the Bandung
\nInstitute of Technology where he studied pure physics (1963) and
\narchitecture (1965) and went to Germany to pursue the same
\nsubject. The couple has a daughter, Kianti Raisa.<\/p>\n
His political career has been rich and varied. He was chairman
\nof the Komite Nasional Pemuda Indonesia (KNPI), secretary-general
\nof Angkatan Muda Pembaruan Indonesia (AMPI), secretary-general of
\nthe Cooperation Committee of ASEAN Youth, vice president of Asian
\nYouth, member of the West Java regional committee of the ruling
\nGolkar faction and member of the House of Representatives before
\nhis appointment to the commission in 1993.<\/p>\n
Maybe it's his fate to be in the spotlight, due to his family
\nbackground, the nature of his work and his personality.
\nUnderneath his measured poise lies a bravery that often takes
\npeople by surprise. Take for example his statement, made years
\nago, that it was his ultimate goal to become president of this
\nrepublic.<\/p>\n
At that time it was taboo to discuss the succession, but
\nMarzuki argued that \"to become the president should be the
\nultimate goal of every politician\".<\/p>\n
The fact that his father is a senior diplomat, and his
\nyoungest brother Chandra Darusman a musician who devotes much of
\nhis time to promoting the protection of local artists' copyright,
\nadds some glamor and fascination to his character.<\/p>\n
What's taking the commission so long to complete the report on
\nthe July 27 riots?<\/p>\n
Public reports. It is our duty to check into every report that
\ncomes in.<\/p>\n
Shouldn't you have a deadline?<\/p>\n
We will set a deadline. And the new reports that come in
\nmostly confirm what we already know, therefore we can safely
\nconclude that we have exhausted all sources of information.<\/p>\n
How did the commission take Pak Harto's challenge to prove its
\nreport on the July 27 riots?<\/p>\n
We did not see it as a pressure, but a confidence in our
\nability to come up with a complete picture of what happened. It
\nseems the government have not yet obtained a clear picture of
\nwhat happened and expect us to provide them with one.<\/p>\n
But if that is perceived as a pressure, then we get pressures
\nfrom everywhere, including from the NGOs.<\/p>\n
How do you ride between those two interests, to meet public
\nexpectation and at the same time maintaining a good relationship
\nwith the government?<\/p>\n
It was difficult in the first six months. The NGOs suspected
\nus as a justification of the government. The latter saw us as an
\nopposition. Now we have eased back into a central position. We
\nare not a government instrument but not an NGO either.<\/p>\n
Are there any discrepancies (in the number of victims, missing
\npersons) between the final report and the one submitted earlier?
\n(The commission's preliminary findings said five died, 149 were
\nwounded and 74 went missing in the riots. President Soeharto
\nchallenged the commission to prove its report. The government has
\nsaid that only four people died and 28 injured in the incident.
\nIt has never made mention of people missing.).<\/p>\n
There are, particularly in the number of those missing, which
\ndropped quite significantly by about 20 because there have been
\nmore families who reported that they have found their missing
\nfamily members. They have established contact, although the
\nmissing people have not necessarily returned home. There is this
\nanxiety.<\/p>\n
They are hiding.<\/p>\n
Political activists, public leaders, all understand that after
\nsuch an incident people go missing. It's not something they worry
\nabout. The question is, why did it happen? Why does a political
\nconflict tend to end up in violence here in Indonesia? The second
\nquestion, why is the public reluctant to participate in the
\npolitical process?<\/p>\n
The case of missing people wouldn't happen if there were clear
\nrules in politics. Problems should be handled in a correct way,
\nopenly, according to the existing law and in a healthy manner.
\nEvery case that is considered to have caused a public disturbance
\nshould be brought to court, and the violator fined, case closed.
\nThere should not always be such far-reaching political
\nimplications.<\/p>\n
These two issues -- the tendency of conflict to end up in
\nviolence and the problem of missing people -- are a problem for
\nthe commission in upholding human rights in Indonesia. If the
\npolice respected human rights in their handling of such cases,
\npeople would not be afraid. On the contrary, they would share the
\nresponsibility. The current situation reflects the quality of our
\npolitical atmosphere, an atmosphere marked with anxiety. Such
\nanxiety is not healthy and is not necessary in politics.<\/p>\n
This will continue. And now the commission is raising the
\nissue of the missing persons, which is in contrast with what the
\ngovernment does. The government never mentioned any missing
\npersons. The government sees the missing persons as a normal
\nphenomenon. We do not want to see this as a normal phenomenon.
\nOnly criminals should have to avoid the police. Political
\nactivists should not be afraid of the police. If this is seen as
\nnormal, people in hiding will be considered criminals. It doesn't
\nmake sense.<\/p>\n
We are encouraging existing political institutions, including
\nthe legal institutions, to curb those two trends. In a harsh
\npolitical atmosphere, there is a tendency to criminalize
\npolitical activities. In an open political system, differences in
\nopinion are not seen as a crime, there is no obligation to
\nconform.<\/p>\n
This is difficult, considering our educational system, which
\nonly creates yes-men. We are only taught to see things from one
\nperspective.<\/p>\n
That's right -- a society with a uniform opinion confronted
\nwith a complex world. The young people are aware of this, but not
\nthe older generations.<\/p>\n
So what Emil Salim (a former cabinet minister and now lecturer
\nat the University of Indonesia) said is true. That we have to
\nwait until the past generations are all gone before we can have
\ndemocracy, and differences of opinion.<\/p>\n
We have to wait? But members of the past generations may live
\nlonger due to better nutrition. A generation usually stays in
\npower for 25 years, and they have long outstayed their time.
\nThere should have been a change in leadership in 1960. Because it
\ndid not happen, it's a problem now. The new generation cannot
\ncontribute to the leadership of this nation.<\/p>\n
I believe we cannot wait. Democracy will not come by itself,
\nit is something that has to be built, that's why we cannot wait
\nuntil the state or the government gives it to us. Democracy
\nshould be something we work for, something we develop.<\/p>\n
But the young generation tends to be conservative, in the
\nsense that they are afraid to do anything for fear of losing what
\nthey have.<\/p>\n
But when they are faced with a situation when the country is
\nin danger, I am sure the young people will be patriotic and will
\nsacrifice.<\/p>\n
The problem is, the older generations always recite a litany
\nof old political problems while the new generation looks to the
\nfuture. To inspire the young to do something for the country,
\nthey need to be confronted with the future, real challenges and
\nhope, not past problems. They cannot understand what the past
\ngenerations had to deal with -- the 1948 and 1965 communist coups
\n-- despite the fact that those incidents posed a real threat to
\nthe nation's existence. The young people are looking for their
\nown identity and will accept only logic.<\/p>\n
I believe the young are ready to die for a society which gives
\nself-development and identity a place. They won't die for a
\nsociety which only wants them to conform. They will die for an
\nopen, democratic society which respects human rights.<\/p>\n
I see many young people joining non-government organizations.
\nThere are around 10,000 NGOs and they are the manifestation of
\nyoung people who want to serve the public.<\/p>\n
But for some people an NGO is nothing more than a job.<\/p>\n
True, but there are many NGOs which serve as a place where
\nyoung people find themselves through working for the public. Not
\nall of them come from a poor background. The NGOs are a middle
\nclass phenomenon, their activists can come from any level of
\nsociety, regardless of their socioeconomic backgrounds.<\/p>\n
The NGOs are proof that there is always a segment of a
\ngeneration which works for the interest of the public, in spite
\nof the current political situation. The New Order politics did
\nnot foresee a place for NGOs. The NGOs are a product of the New
\nOrder, in spite of the structures it has created, which are the
\norganizations that only observe single ideology.<\/p>\n
This is what's encouraging, that political ethos is inherent
\nin a nation.<\/p>\n
You are very optimistic. I'm not.<\/p>\n
That's understandable. Because for people like me and you, the
\nprospects of becoming a leader are very limited, due to the lack
\nof transition. Our generation has been denied their role by one
\nor two layers of generations. That's why in a normal political
\nsystem terms of leadership are limited, not only to limit power
\nbut also to allow a healthy cultural cycle.<\/p>\n
What about Thatcher, Kohl, Lee Kuan Yew?<\/p>\n
Those are exceptions.<\/p>\n
Back to the commission. Are you positive the new chairman will
\nbe elected from among the existing members? And why wait for the
\nnew chairman before signing the report on the July 27 riots?<\/p>\n
It's not that we're waiting for the new chairman to finalize
\nthe report. The new chairman will be elected on Oct. 1, and we're
\ntrying to finish the report as soon as possible. It may be
\ncompleted before or after the election. It's just that the
\nchairmanship has been vacant for so long, plus the fact that
\nthere are four memberships vacant, we tend to focus on the
\nelection. We tend to choose among existing members, who have been
\nworking together for the past three years. They have proved that
\nthey can cooperate.<\/p>\n
Why is it taking you all so long to elect a new chairman?<\/p>\n
Because we all deeply respected Pak Ali (Ali Said died on June
\n28) there was a period of reluctance, but we have passed that
\nperiod. Besides, there are no deadlines for the election of a new
\nchairman. And then we were busy with one thing and another until
\nfinally the July 27 riots...<\/p>\n
Rumor has it that you are the most likely candidate.<\/p>\n
If I become chairman ... I'm not really convinced that I need
\nto become chairman of the commission. If I do, it will take a lot
\nof convincing me that it's something that I need to do and
\npursue. It will be better to have a chairman whose appointment is
\nwell understood by the general public from various points of
\nview: backgrounds, seniority, relationship with the government...<\/p>\n
As for me, people will find it difficult to understand my
\nappointment to the post because I create too many problems.<\/p>\n
What do you mean?<\/p>\n
If I chair this institution, the commission will not be
\nindependent (he laughs) because I take sides. I side with change.
\nAn institution like this requires stability, a symbol, a standard
\nwhich symbolizes stability. I tend to side with change. We cannot
\nhave a chairman who is not taking sides, because by not taking
\nsides he is taking sides with not taking sides. Maybe it's my
\nfate to get involved in matters that warrant change, improvement.<\/p>\n
It's not bad to want change. But if an institution is obliged
\nto insist on stability, then it cannot take sides. Taking sides
\ncan mean many things -- taking sides with groups or
\norganizations. I'm not taking sides with groups or organizations,
\nbut on matters which promote changes. With me as chairman, the
\ncommission will find it difficult to be independent.<\/p>\n
For example?<\/p>\n
I am for including promotion of change on the agenda of the
\ncommission. This will put it in conflict with the government. It
\ncan contradict the government, the public. I am for changing the
\nestablishment.<\/p>\n
But human rights itself is prone to conflict, contradiction,
\nisn't it?<\/p>\n
Yes, it is, and should be so. But that's when we are talking
\nabout individuals, not an institution. An institution needs a
\ntempo, a rhythm which must not be pushed by the pull of speedy
\nchanges. I tend to become too fast. I'm well aware of my image.
\nI'm not the perfect person for the post, maybe in the future...<\/p>\n
Any hint from the government on the possibility of electing a
\nnew chairman from outside?<\/p>\n
No. There are possibilities. We have seven professors. We have
\nestablished the commission as an institution. Sometimes an
\ninstitution becomes synonymous with its chairman. This is
\nsomething we want to avoid. We want someone who will not be
\nidentified as the institution.<\/p>\n
Frankly speaking, it's difficult for me to see someone like
\nyou working for the cause of the small people, the oppressed... I
\nmean, you were born into, and raised in such a well-to-do
\nenvironment. I'm not saying that you should be like Mother Teresa
\nin order to do what you're doing...<\/p>\n
... (silent) It's a difficult question. I don't know how to
\nanswer it because I never thought about that. If we thought about
\nit, it would seem that there must be some kind of an
\naccountability, why we did something. But working for the public
\ninterest is a responsibility in itself that does not warrant an
\nexplanation. If we want to become a businessman, for example,
\nmaybe we need an explanation of why we do it, whether to help
\npromote economic growth, create a better society or channel
\ncreativity.<\/p>\n
It has to be seen from the political point of view. For me,
\npolitics is a calling. The emphasis of what I'm doing is the
\npolitical dimension of the reality that there are in our society
\npeople whose rights are still being violated, who are still
\nbackward...<\/p>\n
What Mother Teresa does is religious. Actually when we make
\npolitics a call of duty, we give it a religious dimension.<\/p>\n
But the commission observes a measured humanity which is not
\nsentimental, not charity, but a humanity which looks at human
\nsuffering from the point of view of change in social and
\npolitical life. Human suffering is not something that cannot be
\nchanged while we offer help solely out of kindness.<\/p>\n
But you never feel out of place?<\/p>\n
Never. It's never been my intention to give the impression
\nthat this is something I have been wanting to do since I was a
\nchild. This is what I want to avoid, because everybody has his
\nown perceptions, motivations...<\/p>\n
The problem is, politicians often end up being accused as the
\ncause of the problems in society which they should have solved.<\/p>\n
In the Indonesian context, we need to develop politics from a
\nprofession into a calling. It is then easier to explain why in
\npolitical life we need to touch public interests, including human
\nrights issues.<\/p>\n
My entry point was politics. Politicians will always face real
\nlife problems if they fight for the common good. Politics is no
\nordinary job. Anyway, all jobs should be a calling.<\/p>\n
There are two dimensions in every politician: ideal and
\npractical. He needs to have practical skills to help solve
\nproblems in society and to fight in the interest of the public.<\/p>\n
But politicians do not have a place in our society, which only
\naccommodates executives and functionaries who do not have the
\nskill to fight for democracy because they are not politicians.<\/p>\n
In Indonesia the opportunity to develop one's skills as a
\npolitician is very restricted because basically politicians must
\nbe allowed to take the initiative. Individual initiative is not
\nencouraged at all because of our common goal to develop our
\neconomic life. Political life has become secondary.<\/p>\n
There hasn't been any change?<\/p>\n
No. No meaningful progress or change. It only looks that way.
\nMaybe it's good to introduce term limitations to allow
\nregeneration, but it cannot be done totally because we still need
\nexperienced senior politicians to help solve problems.<\/p>\n
This explains the accumulation of problems in various
\ninstitutions -- in the court, social and political organizations,
\nthe House.<\/p>\n
This is also related to the centralization of politics. When
\neverybody waits for instruction from the center, problems will
\naccumulate. Decentralization and deregulation will disseminate
\npower and the authority to make decisions and problems will be
\nsolved at the earliest stage...<\/p>\n
Decentralization in government and administration should occur
\nsimultaneously with decentralization in politics. It's because
\nthe essence of political life is the control of power. The
\ngovernment is entrusted with serving the public but at the same
\ntime should be open to control. That doesn't mean that because it
\nis elected every five years, it is subject to monitoring once
\nevery five years only. Control and monitoring can be done
\nperiodically to ensure good public control.<\/p>\n
The problem is, criticism of the government often seems to be
\nmade for the sake of it.<\/p>\n
That is the key to the whole thing -- differences of opinion.
\nOften criticism is launched for the sake of showing one's
\nidentity. This does not mean that the government should accept
\nevery criticism. A government can govern if it has the support of
\none of the social political parties which wins an election. When
\nthere is a wrong policy or if a policy is criticized by the
\npublic, the concerned party is equally responsible. To guarantee
\ngood government, there should be a mechanism which allows
\nsociopolitical organizations to control the government. There
\nwill be interaction between the government and the organizations
\nthat control it, especially organizations which do not win the
\nelection.<\/p>\n
The government should have people who are skilled in
\ndealing with such criticism.<\/p>\n
But once the criticism is in the public domain, it will affect
\npublic opinion. The danger is, the public tends to believe that
\nwhatever the government does is wrong and whatever its critics do
\nis always right.<\/p>\n
That can happen. The press, like every profession, needs a
\ncontrol mechanism, professional selection. Indonesia is not ready
\nfor this. Professionalism exists when there is healthy
\ncompetition. If there is no healthy competition, no qualitative
\nselection in the press, the public will end up with a press that
\nabuses the rules of the game. Similarly, the public will end up
\nwith political leaders who are manipulated by a dominant power,
\nwhich in the press is its claim of having the only truth.<\/p>\n
The press should always create doubt, skepticism, among the
\npublic, because that is its role. But when it has gone too far,
\nwhen its doubt is no longer tempered by its professionalism, it
\nwill lose its integrity.<\/p>\n
But government officials often are not inspiring, such as in
\nthe case of the fire in the Kembang market in Bogor. The mayor
\ninsulted the victims by suggesting that the bodybags contained
\ncat carcasses. Such statements are symptomatic of the unhealthy
\nrelations between the press and the government. It is to be hoped
\nthat the government show that such statements are not acceptable.<\/p>\n
There is public doubt about the integrity of public
\ninstitutions, partly due to the government's inability to share
\ncontrol in the forming of public opinion. Public opinion is open
\nto control by anyone, and that's why the government should allow
\nits supporters to influence public opinion. But even the ability
\nof government supporters to influence public opinion is limited
\nbecause to do so requires freedom of speech, freedom to express
\none's opinion. Here we come across another constraint.<\/p>\n
The public is more mature, problems become more complex --
\npoverty, social imbalance, human rights violations are now
\npolitical problems. If politics cannot be made to serve its
\nfunction, then the problems of poverty, social imbalance and
\nhuman rights violations will never be solved.<\/p>\n
Could you name any great politicians in Indonesia?<\/p>\n
Pak Harto. He's a great politician. There are many actually,
\nbut they have had no chance to develop. Tadjuddin Noer Said (a
\nvocal Golkar House member) who is respected outside Golkar, and
\nHamzah Haz (another vocal House member of the United Development
\nParty faction)<\/p>\n
But his critics would say that power is Pak Harto's only tool
\nfor survival.<\/p>\n
To stay in power for over 25 years is extraordinary. He is a
\ngood manager and his long rule is not attributable to power only.
\nHe has the ability to choose the right people to assist him, it's
\na talent. It's easy to understand, he has a strong character...
\nWhat I mean by a good politician here has nothing to do with
\nideas, which are often just rhetoric with many politicians. Pak
\nHarto's ideas, thoughts and vision belong to the nation -- that's
\nhis rhetoric.<\/p>\n
What do you think of Megawati?<\/p>\n
She is, at the moment, a political symbol because the
\nsituation demands that of her, not because of something that she
\nhas developed herself. I still cannot grasp her political
\nperspectives. She is a phenomenon of the past decade, a symbol of
\nthe people confronted with the establishment. They are hoping for
\nsome changes in elementary matters such as justice, and a sense
\nof participation. Both should have been initiated by the
\ngovernment. If the government had taken the initiative in those
\ntwo basic things, there would not have been this symbol. It's
\nbecause there is no other symbol, and her father's big name makes
\nup half of her charisma. Her own perspectives are not yet clearly
\nformulated, her economic policies and political views not clearly
\noutlined.<\/p>\n
I believe her politics is based on her conscience, regardless
\nof whether or not she has an organizational skills. I don't know
\nif she has a good political instinct, because what she's doing is
\nagainst political sense.<\/p>\n
Could you explain?<\/p>\n
She's not willing to compromise.<\/p>\n
Now the easy questions.<\/p>\n
The easy questions, hmm...<\/p>\n
What kind of a person are you at home?<\/p>\n
Oh, hm, not much different from other people, there's never
\nenough time, always in a hurry, spending Saturdays and Sundays
\nwith the family. That, too, often has to make way for other
\nthings.<\/p>\n
How much do they pay you at the commission?<\/p>\n
It's not a monthly wage, but a honorarium. Rp 2.5 million, the
\nsame government officials get.<\/p>\n
Do you have problem sleeping, with those pressures from all
\ndirections?<\/p>\n
Never. Like a submarine, there's a place for everything and
\nwhen it's time to sleep, I enter my sleeping \"box\".<\/p>\n
By the way, why did you enter politics?<\/p>\n
It's the only door opened for me ha ha ha!<\/p>\n
Window A: The NGOs are a product of the New Order, in spite of the
\nstructures it has created, which are the organizations that only
\nobserve a single ideology. This is what's encouraging, that political
\nethos is inherent in a nation.<\/p>\n
Window B: On Pak Harto: To stay in power for over 25 years is
\nextraordinary. He is a good manager and his long rule is not
\nattributable to power only. He has the ability to choose the right
\npeople t assist him, it's a talent.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/marzuki-darusman-if-i-ran-the-rights-body-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}