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?