Indonesia needs the independent watchdog

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