Basic preconditions for legal aid institutions

Public debate on conflict of interest evolved as soon as Golkar announced its plan to set up a legal aid institution early this month. Sociologist Kastorius Sinaga warns the nation's dominant political organization against the trap of treating legal aid as a political commodity.

JAKARTA (JP): As was recently reported by the mass media, Golkar, the ruling political organization, is expected to establish a new legal aid institution in the near future. In the interim both positive and negative views regarding the plan have arisen. Some observers look on this matter from an upbeat point of view, reasoning that by establishing a new legal aid institution Golkar is proving that it wants to reach down to the poor and help them defend their legal rights without charging anything in return.

Aside from this positive viewpoint, however, many have put forward some critical questions. Will Golkar -- which represents the core of the state's power and has a close relationship with the state bureaucracy -- really be able to provide legal aid for the powerless?

Frequently, this majority political group experiences pressures from government officials or institutions due to the rapid pace of economic development, a process which normally tends to exacerbate the exploitation of the powerless majority in society. Will Golkar -- which is in effect a true political party based on membership -- provide legal aid free of charge for those layers of society which otherwise could not afford it, irrespective of their political affinity or views?

The answer to these questions can only be assessed, in part, by scrutinizing the world of legal aid services in Indonesia in particular and the basic preconditions required by this sector in general.

Compared to the situation prevailing in other countries, the practice of legal aid services does not have the benefit of a long tradition in Indonesia. Up to the mid-1970s there were only a few legal aid institutions in Indonesia. This was due to the lack of political support on the macro level as well as the lack of idealistic lawyers who were willing to share their professional expertise with the poor.

Despite the challenging circumstances caused by the deterioration of the legal system in Indonesia, exemplified particularly in the form of extra-judicial practices in various spheres, most of the legal aid institutions existing at that time were founded by universities. Those institutions tended to function more as vehicles to provide training opportunities for law students. The most popular legal aid institution, which was independently formed, is the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI).

In 1978, following a presidential speech, the "Eight Channels of Distribution" were announced by the government with the main goal of achieving a more just and more egalitarian society. For the first time the Indonesian government recognized the principle of equal opportunities to obtaining legal justice for all. This policy has led to the founding of numerous legal aid institutions in Indonesia, particularly by government-sponsored social and mass organizations.

It is probably justified to say that by establishing legal aid institutions that were affiliated with existing social organizations at the time the government actually wanted to provide an alternative legal aid scheme and simultaneously strengthen the counter-movement against YLBHI's activities.

However, those government-sponsored legal aid institutions did not function as expected. Most of the lawyers who worked for those institutions also had their own law firms and did not have sufficient time, or idealism, to devote themselves to legal aid services that were oriented towards helping the poor and powerless.

Apart from this, the poor people who seek justice through legal aid tend to refrain from consulting legal aid centers that are so closely related to the government, for the simple reason that they regard their lawyers as representatives of the government and therefore the poor are less inclined to trust them. As a result, the independent YLBHI, which was founded and run by such widely known human rights fighters as Adnan Buyung Nasution and T. Mulya Lubis gradually gained the greatest popularity among the powerless. Such a condition could be said to have been the unintended result of the heavy political engineering efforts launched by the state.

Surely we should welcome Golkar's increasing concern towards the poor majority in this country as indicated by its effort to establish a new legal aid center to fight for the legal rights of the powerless. However, to achieve that goal, some preconditions should be mentioned.

First, legal conflicts, particularly between the state and society in the context of development, reflect not merely judicial aspects but also political ones, including those related to the execution of power in the field. This means that litigation activities made through legal aid services should be supplemented with non-litigation efforts aimed at strengthening the power controls at all levels.

Second, the aim of the legal aid institutions in question must go beyond "professional charity" and be directed towards the advancement of the sense of respect for justice and for human rights by raising the level of "legal consciousness" or regard for the law among both government officials and ordinary citizens.

Third, legal security is among the basic human rights. Legal assistance, therefore, should be given without respect of religion, descent, ethnic background, political views and affinity and socio-cultural background.

I think Golkar should take into account these basic preconditions. Otherwise time and the society may well determine that by establishing a new legal aid center Golkar merely wanted to treat legal aid as a political commodity.

The writer is lecturer at the Post-graduate Program of Social and Political Sciences of the University of Indonesia, Jakarta.