Good faith missing in campaign rift

Should Cabinet ministers be involved in election campaigns? This question has turned into a battle between President B.J. Habibie and the General Elections Commission (KPU). Political scientist J. Soedjati Djiwandono sees it as an indication of the unwillingness of the government to conduct total reform.

JAKARTA (JP): The legal opinion offered by the Supreme Court, which was approached for the purpose of once and for all dealing with the wrangling between the KPU and President Habibie over the question of whether or not Cabinet ministers and government officials will be allowed to join election campaigns, has only left the issue hanging in the balance.

Indeed, it is debatable whether a decision by the KPU to ban government officials from campaigning would be in fact legally binding.

It is equally debatable whether, after being asked by the President to give a final ruling on the matter, the Supreme Court is justified in instead offering its "legal opinion", leaving the real decision to Habibie himself. The Supreme Court's credibility is being questioned, that it could take this weak course of action -- although it is explained by suggestions that Habibie asked for such a ruling.

Whatever the case may be, Habibie's action was a sign of his own disagreement with the KPU decision. But then this puts his honesty, his good will and good faith in doubt -- although there is no doubt that the Supreme Court, in doing what it did, is on the side of the President. But, knowing both Habibie and the Supreme Court were both part and parcel of Soeharto's New Order system, what can one expect?

Minister of Justice Muladi's emphasis on the supremacy of law when justifying the actions of the Supreme Court was no more than simple hypocrisy, considering what he actually meant here was the principle of legality. This is characteristic of the New Order's style of governing also.

Apparently the minister chose to ignore, or was not aware of, the morality behind the decision of the KPU. This showed his distorted understanding of the rule of law. This is beyond comprehension and almost unforgivable for a man in his position with his academic background.

His mention of morality in backing up the Supreme Court's legal opinion was therefore, at best, ironic, considering his displayed lack of concern for morality. His reference to such issues as globalization was irrelevant. And his remark on the need for "constitutional reform" -- the correct term in English but having a completely different connotation when said in Indonesian -- was an indication of his misunderstanding of the meaning of reform.

Indeed, the question is not one of legality, but precisely one of morality, unknown to the New Order. It is also a question of good will and good faith. If Cabinet ministers and other government officials really do not intend to make use of the state's facilities in their campaign activities, it is hard to understand why they would object to an expressed commitment not to do just that. It would be an opportunity to prove their integrity, honesty and sincerity to ensure a fair election.

This is particularly important considering the fact that for many years they have been loyal supporters of Soeharto's New Order. They are as such the targets of widespread suspicion in society as being pro-status quo and opposed to reform.

In the meantime, representatives of political parties in the KPU, particularly those outside the present power structure, will certainly have no access to such facilities, given that they are allowed to campaign and to run for seats in Parliament.

The controversial issue is just another example of how incompetent, confused, and uncoordinated the Habibie government has been all along. Worst of all, it shows all the more clearly the lack of commitment on its part to total reform of the rotten political system.