Indonesia needs the independent watchdog

Reactions to the setting up of the Independent Election Monitoring Committee (KIPP) by a clutch of independent-minded intellectuals last month have continued unabated. J. Soedjati Djiwandono reviews the various reactions to the body.

JAKARTA (JP): What is not explicitly prohibited by law is not a violation of the law. Thus to disagree with the establishment of the Independent Election Monitoring Committee on the grounds of constitutionality and legality is plain pettifoggery and an expression of prejudice. In particular, arguing that we already have an "official" monitoring committee as well as an elaborate law on elections, and that we thus don't need such a body, is plain ignorant.

For a start, being "official" does not guarantee a body's devotion to truth, fairness, honesty and justice. On the contrary. Often precisely the opposite can be guaranteed. It must also be remembered that the law is one thing, but its consistent enforcement is quite another. So the existence of an elaborate law in itself does not mean much without enforcement.

The basic question must surely be this: why object to an independent committee if you have nothing to hide? And if those in the committee are certain individuals with "problems" why not just try and suggest a change of personnel, and make clear that the committee itself is okay. What is meant by "individual with problems", anyway? Those who have had suffered injustices, such as women that have been raped or editors whose publications have been banned without recourse to law, are of course individuals with problems. But whose responsibility is this ? And who is to blame?

If one wanted to be legalistic, then one could indeed note that in some democracies, an "independent" body for inquiry, for instance, is normally one formed by and accountable to the House of Representatives, independent of executive power and interference. But let's face it, what hope is there of that from our House of Representatives?

More importantly, we should be able to distinguish phenomena from the real problems underlying them. Just as the emergence or "rebirth" of certain old mass organizations some time ago, at least in name only if not in substance, was primarily an assertion of freedom and expression of a lack of confidence in the government, the same is probably true of the election body. What is it capable of doing, anyway? It may well lack the funds and manpower to effectively monitor the hundreds of thousands of polling booths.

But I don't think that is the main issue either. The issue is simply the loss of confidence in the government and in the law, especially its consistent enforcement, and a suspicion that dirty tricks and cheating will take place. This is a justifiable suspicion based on past experience. Election fraud is one of those "public secrets" in this country.

Thus the value of the election watchdog lies in its self- evident morality. To fail to see and understand this, or to pretend not to see it that way, is just naive or even plain dishonest.

What I fail to understand is the establishment of other, similar "independent" election watchdogs, especially the one affiliated to Golkar. If these people really appreciate the value of independent election monitoring, why not join forces? This creates an impression of disunity and rivalry, and worse still could be a conscious effort to foil the work of the body.

What we need now is a nation-wide platform for human rights, democracy, liberty, equality and justice for all. These issues cut across sectarian boundaries, be they ethnic, racial, religious, cultural, linguistic or geographical. A direct challenge to almost unrestrained power is up against the wall. But moral power should not be underestimated. Just a single voice of justice often represents a silent majority yearning for expression - and perhaps for leadership.

To close these musings, I note with cautious and guided optimism a remark made by Coordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs Soesilo Soedarman.

In a report on these pages on April 20, 1996 he was quoted as claiming the following: "it is impossible to implement democracy in a liberal manner, because Indonesians are culturally and politically not ready for it,". Using this tack rather than the timeworn argument that democracy is somehow not in accordance with our "national identity" or some ill-defined "cultural values" is a kind of a step forward. There is already some progress in mental attitudes and ways of thinking.

The writer is a member of the Board of Directors at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta.

Editorial -- Page 4