Civil society after Akbar's acquittal

Civil society after Akbar's acquittal

Christine Susanna Tjhin, Department of Politics and Social Change
Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta

A friend won a bet on Akbar's release. "I told you so! Our oh-
so-reliable Supreme Court will release him!" he said
sarcastically after claiming his prize -- a bag of peanuts. The
release of Akbar Tandjung was the climax to disappointments over
the Indonesian judicial system throughout the reform period. Some
said it was to be expected. Yet, it tasted despicably bitter when
it actually happened.

Saying that the Supreme Court has no sense of crisis would be
the understatement of the year. It is rather comical to hear
those who urge the public to "respect" the Supreme Court's
decision, as the judiciary has made a mockery of justice, as well
as democracy.

Fortunately, civil society does not use force to challenge
this mockery of justice, although, there has been violence on the
streets involving students.

Since the Indonesian judiciary seems to have very little
conscience, it cannot be relied upon in the march toward
democracy. Civil society must be creative and careful in
upholding democratic values, while working to eradicate
corruption.

But can civil society deliver? This year's elections are one
opportunity for the people to prove that they are capable of
change. However, a survey conducted by the Indonesian Survey
Institute (LSI) in November of last year -- involving over 2,000
respondents from across the archipelago -- produced some rather
grim odds. While Megawati remains a popular choice for president,
Golkar was voted the most popular party by respondents. M.
Qodari, director of research at LSI, illustrates a possible
political constellation is for Indonesia to have a divided
government post 2004 elections. A division in the "potential"
government, which is already shown to be corrupt, is not really a
very encouraging illustration.

Dispersing the vote to smaller parties on different
territorial levels is a strategic voting option, as suggested by
N. Harjanto in his article in The Jakarta Post on Feb. 10. Voters
could allocate their votes to parties that are smaller but have
clean backgrounds and sound platforms. So, instead of
entertaining the major parties by giving them the largest piece
of the cake, voters could give smaller parties a bigger chance.

The risk of potential conflict over legitimacy resulting from
a small margin of victory in the elections must be avoided. This
requires a consolidated commitment within and amongst the civil
society and political parties. Symbolic and/or actual commitment
to a peaceful elections period from political parties would rely
heavily on similar gestures from civil society.

So far, civil society has never been able to relate
effectively to political parties. Differences in ideas and
interests, as well as bureaucratic obstacles within political
parties have hampered synergy between the two key elements of
democracy. But, at least the current mechanism by way of a
neutral third party, has managed to be a push factor for the
democratization movement.

The presence of the General Elections Commission (KPU) is one
example. The idea of institutionalizing the coalition for
peaceful elections that came from civil society was communicated
more (not most) effectively to political parties via KPU.

Who are the other potential third parties? Can former student
activists that have just joined political parties be another push
factor? They bear potential, provided that they stick with
upholding democratic values rather than narrow party interests
within and outside party circles.

For the longer term, more consolidated watchdogs, student
movements, and independent and responsible media would play a
critical role in countering the flawed system. For this, a sound
and comprehensive civil society agenda must be formulated
immediately.

Based on YAPPIKA (Civil Society Alliance for Democracy) and
CIVICUS' (International Alliance of Civil Societies) latest Civil
Society Index national assessment (2003), civil society in
Indonesia rated "less healthy", scoring 2.3 out of four. Of five
dimensions used (environment, scope, relations, values and
impacts), relations -- which refers to the quality and degree of
closeness of civil-state relations and the reciprocal impact of
the market and civil society -- received the lowest rating.

Still, an optimistic tone is present in the assessment. Civil
society's increasing independence, on one hand, compensates for
its insipid relations with the state. Being independent provides
civil society with greater bargaining power to deal with the
state. Although, synergy relies on effective communication.

What is missing from the index is the internal relations of
civil society. This is relevant to the arguments of this article,
especially in that political parties are included in CIVICUS'
working definition of civil society (given that the political
parties involved are not the ones chosen as part of government
institutions through free and fair elections).

We have heard of the symbolic signing of a code of conduct
amongst political parties, but this was not done within the
larger context of civil society. This commitment must be sealed
within this context also. Furthermore, we are yet to hear of
further developments of the civil society code of ethics or the
civil society agenda. It seems that discussion on the code of
ethics has been forgotten amid the lead up to the 2004 elections
and the Supreme Court drama.

Akbar's verdict has been handed down. The move toward
democracy is in havoc now, but the battle is far from over. This
is exactly when the discussion on formulating a comprehensive
civil society agenda becomes not simply relevant, but highly
imperative.

The author is willing to bet that civil society has what it
takes. Who else wants to chip in?