Freedom of expression can hurt
Freedom of expression can hurt
By Ridarson Galingging
JAKARTA (JP): A genuine sense of excitement has swept across
Indonesia since the limitations on freedom of expression were
lifted.
People feel released after decades of silence and fear.
Now the headlines blare their biting criticisms and
average citizens speak out instead of whispering. No one
is spared -- not even the President and Vice President.
If Indonesian democracy is a sick patient, then these
new freedoms are surely the right medicine.
But there can be too much of a good thing. The right
dose of medicine given in the right form can help the
patient recover. But too much in the wrong form can
hurt the patient.
Even in the strongest democracies around the world, the right
to freedom of expression never means freedom to say
anything you like or express demands using any methods
available.
The legal system in Indonesia is broken, and
thus there are no protections for people against unfair
attacks on their reputations.
And because the authority and control of the government
is weak -- even though its legitimacy is high -- groups
and individuals are expressing their political demands
in ways that undermine our basic rights in society, as
well as our ability to get along with each other in a
civilized manner.
The examples of character assassination in Indonesia
have been numerous and spectacular, and the population
has recoiled in horror and confusion.
The recent case of Laksamana Sukardi, the former state
minister of investment and state enterprises development, was
stunning not only because a person of obvious integrity was the
target, but because the reports of his involvement in
KKN (acronym for corruption, collusion and nepotism) were said to
come from the President himself in a closed-door meeting with the
legislature.
Freedom of speech should not include the right to
publicly accuse people of crimes without providing supporting
evidence. Laksamana had a right to due process of the law and the
presumption of innocence. He was not charged with any crime, and
thus it was improper to fire him on the basis of allegations of
KKN.
Sometimes the press can be manipulated effectively to
carry out character assassinations against political targets.
A good example is the case last year of American professor
Jeffrey Winters, when newspapers and magazines printed
allegations of harassment in Yogyakarta. Although police
investigations later found that the allegations were groundless
and the case was officially closed for lack of credible evidence,
there were not enough protections in place in the system to
prevent damage to his reputation.
Once the damage is done, it never matters what the truth or
outcome is later.
There are numerous other cases of this kind, with the victims
often having no chance at all to clear their names.
As for freedom of political expression, this is crucial for a
democracy. The right to gather and protest must be upheld if our
transition to democracy is to move forward.
Even civil disobedience, which means refusing to obey
government orders to stop a protest or retreat from an
area that is blocked off, is an important form of expression
of dissent.
But when violence is used in political expression, the
line is crossed between behavior that upholds democracy
and actions that undermine it. Violent expression is a
crime and, if our rights are to be upheld, it must be
punished.
The problem in Indonesia now is that the government
lacks authority, and thus we are witnessing forms of
political expression that are not tolerated in any
healthy democracy around the world.
Freedom of expression should not mean that people can
threaten others physically or destroy property. Nor does it mean
that people can be terrorized.
It is the state, with its police force and courts, that
must enforce the boundaries of expression according to
the law. It is a delicate process, and the irony is that our most
important rights in society cannot be protected if the police are
too weak or too strong.
Indonesia has not yet found the middle ground for its police
and military, and thus we are experiencing a deep crisis of
government authority.
One of the most extreme examples of this came last April
when 1,000 angry protesters armed with machetes and
knives stormed the House of Representatives building. To the
horror of everyone there, the protesters pulled out their weapons
as they approached the third-floor office of House Speaker Akbar
Tanjung.
This was obviously political expression, but it was the
sort of political expression all Indonesians should condemn --
not because of the content of the protesters message but because
of the method used to express it.
Political expression through violence is antidemocratic and
should not be tolerated.
Not only were these armed citizens not prevented from
entering the House building, but none were arrested or prosecuted
for their intimidating actions.
Because the state did not exercise its proper authority,
its authority was drained even further. Can anyone imagine
an armed attack like this happening at Capitol Hill in Washington
D.C. and no action being taken?
It is time for all Indonesians to realize that the best
way to uphold and expand legitimate freedom of expression is by
condemning those who abuse this cherished right.
This means firmly rejecting the use of free speech to
destroy people's reputations, or mixing political expression with
violence and threats of destruction.
The writer is a law lecturer at Yarsi University in Jakarta.