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.