Abolition of permit act shows govt cognizant

Abolition of permit act shows govt cognizant

The government is planning to abolish the notorious gathering
permits which have allowed a number of discussions and cultural
performances to be banned in recent months. Noted political
scientist Amir Santoso looks at the implications of the scrapping
of the policy, which is based on Article 510 of the Criminal
Code.

JAKARTA (JP): The government's plan to abolish gathering
permits later this year will have a number of results.

First, the government will take a more relaxed attitude. It
will be able to concentrate on more urgent development issues
instead of busying itself with image-building, both from the pro-
government group as well as opposition groups inside and outside
the country. At least, the decision will mean that the opposition
will lose one item from its list of grievances against the
government.

Second, the confusion among subordinate government officials
will be abolished. They are currently caught up in a difficult
situation. If they did not issue a permit, they are blamed by the
community, but if they do so and a problem occurs, they are
punished by their superiors.

Third, one of the sources of graft can be eliminated. Permits
often involved an amount of money paid by applicants to officials
with the intention of speeding up the issuance of the permits.

Fourth, the government and the community will learn from each
other to understand differences of opinion and this is a very
important point in the democratization process.

Fifth, the settlement of conflicts through an authoritarian
approach can be replaced by legal approach.

Conflicts between persons or between institutions arising in
discussions must be settled through the judiciary. If a
discussion or lecture participant is considered as having
insulted another party, the offended party is allowed to sue the
person concerned. Let the court decide.

Thus, all parties, both the government and the community, will
each learn to take responsibility and to show restraint in using
their freedom.

This should correctly also apply to freedom of the press. If
the press make criticism without supporting data or is considered
as having insulted another party, including the government, the
press should be brought to court.

The revocation of gathering permits, when it turns into
reality, will be proof of the success of external and internal
pressure for greater freedom of expression.

External pressure may come in the form of an appeal from
another country passed on orally, as well as in writing in their
mass media. Such external pressure becomes more effective if it
is conveyed in a persuasive way and not in the form of a threat.
It has often been shown that demands accompanied by threats or
insults have been clearly opposed by the Indonesian government,
as in the case of the dissolution of IGGI (Inter-Government Group
on Indonesia) a few years ago.

However, in comparison, I think the internal pressures
originating from the government's own circles were of greater
influence. Government leaders today, both from the 1945
generation and the younger generation understand the necessity of
dedication to the people's interests. The 1945 generation
consists of those who have always felt indebted to the people who
aided them during the revolution toward freedom. Giving more
freedom to the people is one of their wishes.

On the other hand, the young leaders are people who have
acquired a wish for democracy during their studies, both at home
and abroad. This also applies to Armed Forces circles. A growing
number of Armed Forces members now have the spirit of democracy
and are furious about all forms of power abuse. They are becoming
increasingly open towards the democratization process through
their education, inside and outside the country, and through the
mass media.

Internal pressure, which is not less important, takes the form
of opinions or suggestions voiced by writers, intellectuals or
institutions of learning, which are now given the freedom to
express their opinions.

I have seen that the government has adopted many of these
opinions and suggestions, especially when these have been
submitted in a sympathetic way through persuasive means.

Thus, the decision to revoke the requirement for gathering
permits proves that the government is in fact responsive towards
the people's demands, provided that the demands are not voiced in
an aggressive or defiant manner.

The writer is lecturer of political science at the University
of Indonesia and director of Center for Policy and Development
Studies.