An alternative to press banning

By Aleksius Jemadu

JAKARTA (JP): Since R. Hartono assumed office as minister of information, there has been a good deal of discussion in our mass media on whether the government could be persuaded not to use its power to revoke press publishing licenses (SIUPP). The new minister of information said that as long as the national press could cooperate with the government and put national interests above those of individuals or groups there would be no revocation of press licenses. But in the eyes of the government, the stipulation on the revocation of publishing licenses is still a necessary instrument to restrain the irresponsible use of press freedom in Indonesia.

There are three areas where interaction could determine the evolution of a free and responsible press in Indonesia. This includes the government, the press and the public. The three areas have different, if not conflicting, interests. On top of that, they have to face different demands from their respective internal and external environments. The government is concerned about at least two things. First, it has to maintain public order and political stability. Second, it is eager to maintain its good image at the domestic and international levels. Sometimes it is not easy to distinguish between the two interests.

We cannot deny that the Indonesian press industry today is facing tremendous challenges. It can be said that the press has become an embodiment of different missions. It has to function not only as a publication with a social mission, but also as a business enterprise which must produce a profitable return on investment.

Another challenge our national press has to face is severe competition among its members. As such, the press is under constant pressure to improve the quality of its service to its customers. Newspapers, magazines and television networks have to develop their respective competitive advantages in presenting information to the public. In order to integrate the two missions, those working in the press are required to increase their professionalism in serving the public's need for accurate and objective information.

Therefore, the national press is responsible not only to the government, but also to the increasingly critical public. On top of that, society demands professionalism from the national press as people's political awareness increases. Indonesians do not only need accurate information on policy issues which might have far-reaching consequences for society, but also sharp analyses of what is going on in our political and economic systems.

A critical public could reject any newspaper or magazine which has an indifferent attitude to social and economic problems in society. In this regard, press workers would consider the stipulation on the revocation of publishing licenses a great constraint for the development of a national press that may satisfy the needs of its readers.

It is often argued that the Indonesian press has a strategic role as a channel of political communication between the government and the people. In a situation where formal political institutions such as political parties, parliament and mass organizations cannot function effectively, people would regard the press as an alternative instrument for communicating their aspirations.

Given its strategic role as a pillar of democratization, we would agree that the press should be free from the fear of being banned by the government. It would be naive to expect that the press should publish only the good aspects of our political and economic realities. But the question is can a mechanism be found by which a free and responsible press can be guaranteed without relying on repressive measures that might hinder its growth toward professionalism? Would it be possible to find other types of punishment that are less fatal to the survival of the errant press?

Before we answer these questions it is necessary to develop several arguments on which the abolishment of the stipulation on the press bannings can be based. First, revocation of publishing licenses is unfair punishment because it victimizes the journalists and employees of a press publishing company, regardless of whether or not they were involved in violating the press law. It would be fair if the punishment was applied only to the individuals who made the mistake. Collective punishment through the revocation of publishing licenses could lead to the victimization of those who cannot be held responsible for the mistakes of their colleagues.

Second, press bannings could create a negative precedent, which might become an obstacle in building a constructive interaction between the press and the government. Too many restrictions imposed upon the press would not be a good political education for the people. The spread of rumors and gossip in the community is mainly due to the fact that the press cannot satisfy the needs of the people for complete information on certain political issues. We should not let people get their information from irresponsible sources. The government and the press can work together in developing a responsible information system.

Third, press bans could tarnish the image of the government, both at home and abroad. Moreover, in this era of globalization, democratization can be said to be a universal trend. The development of a country's press freedom is an important criteria to measure the progress of its democratization.

We could agree with the Minister of Information Hartono who suggested that there must be sincere and open dialog between the government and the press, so that the two may be able and willing to understand each other. Informal contacts between press workers and government officials can be very useful in building mutual understanding and cooperation. As far as press freedom is concerned, we cannot stay the same. It is necessary to change to improve the quality of our national press. But do we have the political will to manage such change in a democratic manner?

The writer is director of the Parahyangan Center for International Studies (PACIS) at Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung.

Window A: Given its strategic role as a pillar of democratization, we would agree that the press should be free from the fear of being banned by the government.

Window B: Informal contacts between press workers and government officials can be very useful in building mutual understanding and cooperation.