Indonesia's 'three musketeers' face the nation's problems

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Three names have come under limelight lately: Megawati Soekarnoputri, Sri Bintang Pamungkas and Judge Adi Andojo Soetjipto. The three of them have become the focus of a multitude of informal public discussions.

In the public eye they are exalted as extraordinarily courageous characters, perceived as persons who refuse to panic in the face of intimidation, refuse to budge in the face of brute power, and refuse to kneel down in the face of overpowering might.

Outwardly, each of these three personalities are fighting for a separate cause. Megawati is fighting for her existence as a party leader, Sri Bintang Pamungkas for his innocence, and Adi Andojo for his integrity.

Viewed within the context of Indonesia's society today, however, it is difficult not to assume that they are fighting for a common cause, namely fighting against what they perceive as unjust and willfully wrong execution of power.

For reasons unknown to me, it seems that their perception of justice and injustice conforms to that of the public's. As such, it is perceived that they are fighting for a public cause.

How is it that these three names remain popular with the public, despite the fact that they have been clearly rejected and more or less condemned by high-ranking government officials?

This question is particularly important with regard to Judge Adi Andojo who is not a politician and who has never done anything in his life to enhance his popularity.

Can it be that at the moment the public and the corps of high- ranking government officials are at two opposing sides with regard to concepts about justice, decency and honor? Can it be that in their consciences they are alienated from one another?

I have no answer to this question. And I doubt I will ever find an answer to it. But I think that part of the explanation can be found in the following:

For quite some time there has been a growing gap between the public and the officialdom with regard to the concept of justice, decency and honor.

It has been demonstrated in many cases that the definition of justice, decency and honor adopted by government officials differs significantly from that adopted by the public.

The public has, of course, never formulated and expressed its concept of justice, decency and honor in an articulate way. But objections over court rulings expressed by the public in a number of cases, or disagreements with opinions about honorable and decent acts in public life expressed by government officials constitute undeniable evidence that the public has its own criteria regarding these three concepts.

I think that every government has the moral obligation to comprehend and be sensitive to the sense of justice, honor and decency that exists at any one period within society.

Without this knowledge and sensitivity it is virtually impossible for any government to generate an atmosphere within society which makes the public feel that the law is being observed and that justice prevails.

Failure to incorporate the public's feelings about justice, honor and decency into court rulings or into government pronouncements results, ultimately, in loss of credibility and loss of public respect. And no one can govern effectively without the public's trust and respect.

Public reaction towards the latest developments with regard to the Indonesian Democratic Party, Sri Bintang Pamungkas, and the allegation of collusion within the Supreme Court suggests very strongly that the government's credibility has been greatly eroded.

Harsh statements and bold pronouncements by government officials about how things should be perceived and how the public should behave will not make members of the public change their opinion regarding these three cases. In spite of all the punitive statements that government officials have launched against the three characters involved, they remain in high regard with the public.

What makes people like me feel sad and depressed about this whole affair is that high-ranking government officials seem to be totally disregarding the public's feelings about justice, honor and decency.

Denying undeniable facts, for instance, constitutes a much employed tactic to win an argument by force and not by reason. While the public perceive such acts as indecent and dishonorable, it seems that many government officials regard them as normal and creditable.

And although blaming a third party every time an undesirable situation arises is perceived by the public as an dishonest act, again it seems that many high-ranking government officials regard such an act as harmless and permissible.

Practices like this cannot, within the present circumstances, enhance the respectability of the government in the public's eye. More often than not the public sees such tactics as an effort to wrongly protect those who may really be responsible for the occurrence of such a situation.

How much longer will this situation last in our society? Living in mutual distrust has never been a healthy thing. It is not healthy for family life, not healthy for business life, and especially not healthy for a nation's life.

Who has the responsibility to restore the public's trust and respect vis-a-vis government officials, government institutions and the government itself? This is a question that must be answered honestly if we really want to restore a healthy and vigorous nation's life at this juncture within our history.

In the meantime, what are the prospects of Megawati, Sri Bintang Pamungkas and Judge Adi Andojo, the three Indonesian musketeers? Will they come out of this battle as victors, or will they be crushed by sheer power and eventually be forgotten by the public? Will they ultimately recede into political obscurity? No one, I think, can answer this question with certainty at the moment.

Equally important is the question about what will become of this nation in the immediate future. Will it be able to restore its capacity to reason and act responsibly, or will it degenerate into a further vortex of political and bureaucratic disintegration?

Again, no one can, I think, at the moment give a definitive answer to this question. And I am afraid that the answers to these two questions are interrelated.

Which means that the problem regarding the three personalities is the problem of this nation. The issue of the three musketeers has by now become too big to be separated from the national issue of restoring the public's trust in and respect for the government.

The decision of the government regarding these three public characters will -- at least in the short term -- decisively determine the course towards which this nation heads.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.