Intervention by the state in sexuality unnecessary

Intervention by the state in sexuality unnecessary

This is the first of two articles on state and sexuality by
sociologist Julia I. Suryakusuma, also executive director of the
API Foundation for political research, information and
publication in Jakarta.

JAKARTA (JP): Sex is a private matter. However, sexual
behavior is regulated not only by social and religious norms;
often states also regulate sexuality under the pretext of
population policies, eugenics and morality. In Indonesia this is
poignantly illustrated in government regulation no. 10/1983
(PP10).

Recently, there have been calls to revoke PP10, by, among
others, State Minister of the Empowerment of Women Khofifah Indar
Parawansa. She said that polygamy is a purely personal choice (of
men), and that the state did not need to intervene.

On the other hand, First Lady Sinta Nuriyah Rahman stated that
PP10 needs to be retained as it protects women. This opinion was
echoed by a number of members of Dharma Wanita, the civil
servants' wives association.

There are a number of problems -- and serious misperceptions
-- in these two conflicting viewpoints. PP10 does not prohibit
polygamy -- it merely requires civil servants to seek permission
from their superiors to get divorced or marry a subsequent wife.
As for protecting women, research proves differently.

A research I conducted on PP10 (published in Indonesian, in
Prisma no. 7, 1991 and in English in L. Sears (ed.), Fantasizing
the Feminine in Indonesia, Duke University Press, 1996) came to
this conclusion: PP10 institutionalizes oppression, makes
hypocrisy a norm and manipulation a mainstay of survival.

It is a tool of the authoritarian state, fraught with
contradictions and inconsistencies and it oppresses not only
women but also men.

From a purely legal point of view, PP10 begs explanation.
Besides the 1974 Marriage Law, there are also religious and
customary laws, so why should there be a special regulation for
civil servants? The reason: bureaucrats, especially high-ranking
officials, are meant to represent the state.

Therefore, they should set an example for the rest of society.
As an indicator of the "integrity" and "morality" of an official,
sexual behavior also has economic implications that can lead to
corruption. Multiple wives require multiple funds too.

At the request of prominent officials in Dharma Wanita who
were worried about their husbands' ill treatment as well as their
tendency to have multiple partners, the government enacted PP10.
Its distinguishing characteristic -- considered to make up for
the weaknesses of the 1974 Marriage Law -- is that it obliges
male civil servants to seek permission from their immediate
superiors to take subsequent wives or to divorce.

Furthermore, it prohibits civil servants from cohabitating
outside marriage.

Alas, none of the aims of PP10 were achieved. There is a
fundamental contradiction in PP10 which attempts to prevent
something that is legal according to the Marriage Law as well as
according to Islamic law; this contradiction results in
unnecessary complications.

Since its enactment in 1983, the number of sexual
"transgressions", polygamous marriages and divorces decreased.
Yet, at the same time, the number of "empty/false" marriages
increased (to maintain the image of a happy and harmonious
family); the practice of keeping mistresses, sex as a commodity,
the use of prostitutes to "service" clients or business partners,
and the use of women as rotating sex objects, increased, and
became standard practice.

In the context of the proximity between business and
government, what emerged was the practice of "one project, one
woman".

In the end, the civil servants' association (KORPRI), like the
military, is a "boys' club". Theoretically, it is difficult to
obtain permission to take a subsequent wife or to get divorced,
but in reality it was often quite easy.

Once permission was obtained, the wife was often reluctant to
question the matter. Apart from the embarrassment of having to
deal with her husband's superior, often the latter would blame
her for the problems in the marriage and for her "inability" to
prevent her husband's taking on a subsequent wife, or infidelity.

Even if the superior defends the wife, the husband could
punish her verbally or physically, and still divorce her, even at
the risk of losing his job.

As for the wife's permission, it can easily be manipulated or
ignored. Furthermore, the implementation of PP10 can be
arbitrary. It can be used to remove an official, but it is used
selectively.

Should the official be one that the bureaucracy wants to
retain, a way will be found around the regulations, whatever
sexual infringement he has committed. What is at stake here is
not the interest of the husband, never mind the wife, but that of
bureaucratic state power.