Can human rights be guaranteed with decree?

By Vedi R. Hadiz

JAKARTA (JP): An interesting debate has ensued recently, prompted by the formulation of a document by the National Defense and Security Council (Wanhankamnas), about whether our People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) should produce a decree on human rights.

The most powerful factions in parliament, Golkar and the Armed Forces, have rejected the notion, arguing that human rights are already sufficiently enshrined in our Constitution. The Moslem- oriented United Development Party (PPP) faction has been the only one championing the cause so far, with the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) faction, representing a party only a shadow of its former self, basically not saying much at all on the subject.

Politicians like Abdurrachman Wahid and Marzuki Darusman of the National Human Rights Commission have come out strongly in favor of such a decree.

The fact that the most powerful political groupings have rejected the idea, however, makes it highly unlikely that such a decree will soon see the light of day.

So, do we need a decree on human rights, in spite of such a lack of enthusiasm among some political groups?

I would argue that, yes, an MPR decree on human rights would be helpful indeed. However, not having seen the document produced by the Wanhankamnas, I'd rather refrain from advocating that the particular document produced by this esteemed organization be made the model.

But the idea of having an MPR decree on human rights is essentially a good one.

Contrary to frequent official denials, we know all too well that human rights are often too easily breached in this country -- the victims usually being the poorest and weakest in society, especially women.

This we can ascertain by simply having short conversations with workers who have had the misfortune of incurring the wrath of some members of the security apparatus during labor strikes, farmers or slum-dwellers forcibly evicted from their lands or homes in the name of development, or even a small number of middle class student activists who'd rather forget about some of their experiences in local police or military stations.

Or to make it more simple, we only need to read some of the reports of the Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) or the government's own Human Rights Commission, if we are disinclined to read the reports of "outsiders", like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch.

Yes, it is true that we have all sorts of laws and regulations which seem to guarantee some of the basic human rights. Its also true that some of these are already enshrined within our Constitution. But a decree by the MPR, reiterating that human rights need to be upheld, can only be helpful to give greater force to anything that currently exists that is supportive of human rights, and maybe, as the impetus for newer, better laws in the future.

Nevertheless, a decree is not a cure-all, for in essence, guaranteeing human rights is not something which happens by decree. Besides, we also know that there are so many rules and regulations in Indonesia which, in the harsh reality of everyday life, do not mean a thing.

So a decree on human rights by the MPR is not a cure-all, but is still potentially helpful. A condition, however, is that the formulation of the decree should involve as great a variety of groups in society as is possible.

The document produced by Wanhankamnas, for example, if acceptable at all, should only be one among a great number of inputs to the MPR.

The views of independent intellectuals, for example, as well as organizations like the Human Rights Commission, or YLBHI and other NGOs, should also be somehow invited and accommodated.

Though many of these NGOs have had an uneasy relationship with the government, the fact is that some of them are most intimately acquainted with the common occurrence of practices which infringe on human rights, particularly of the weak and poor.

Without their views, there is the danger that any decree will only fall into the trap of codifying the dubious idea of "authentically" Indonesian conceptions of human rights, which are supposed to be incompatible with Western or any universal conceptions.

For too long such an idea has been the justification for practices that clearly infringe on any reasonable notion of human rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an obvious reference for any decree on human rights that the MPR might produce.

The point to be made here is that an MPR decree on human rights should be the product of a process which has been as democratic as possible, to ensure relevance with problems manifest in everyday reality.

Something which is simply decreed from above notwithstanding by an institution of such high standing as the MPR may not do this, and therefore be of little use to the noble struggle to uphold human rights in Indonesia.

Of course the process would be much simpler and shorter if the MPR just adopted a decree based on the Wanhankamnas document. However, such a decree would be conceivably less useful than it might have been.

Another point to be made is that decrees, laws, regulations and even constitutions are of little value if the they are not well-enforced.

It is of course incumbent on the institutions of the state to see that they are indeed enforced. However, it is incumbent on the society to ensure that these state institutions carry out their functions in the appropriate way, including in the matter of enforcing any law or decree which relates to the upholding of human rights.

The reason that so many products of legislation in this country are simply neglected or become irrelevant in everyday life is that society is simply too weak and powerless to exert any influence on the behavior and actions of these institutions.

The writer is a research fellow of the Asia Research Center, Murdoch University, Perth.