Good faith missing in campaign rift

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.