Killing public issues weakens govt's legitimacy

By Adrianus Meliala

JAKARTA (JP): A recurring quandary in Indonesia is the snuffing of an issue the very moment it makes front-page news and grabs the public's attention.

It's like when a free open-air film is hit by a blackout. A wave of anger engulfs the audience but then the non-paying moviegoers realize the futility of protesting.

It wouldn't be too bad, in these hectic times, if this habit was limited to a few villagers or related to trivial issues. Nor would it be all that important if the case was killed out of indifference.

It's completely different, however, when a case is slammed shut by the government, especially if the case happens to involve trillions of rupiah of public money, the loss of life, or the destiny of the nation.

Rather than protesting, though, the Indonesian public usually stays mum, even when the case being officially snuffed is in no way finished.

Examples of officially closed cases abound: the Bapindo bank scandal, the drug-related case of film star Ria Irawan, the alleged corruption at the ministry of transportation, the so- called Revolution Fund mystery, and soon, perhaps, the controversy over the Independent Election Monitoring Committee and the alleged collusion in the Supreme Court.

The difference of views between the government and the people about a major case cannot be settled by power because the Pancasila state ideology dictates consensus in finding a solution. A consensus cannot be reached with one party on the winning side and the other left deeply frustrated.

Why does the government prefer to employ the power approach? And why does the government then refrain from using its normal approach in some cases?

There are several possibilities.

There may be those in power who shun deliberation. They assume that meetings to reach consensus are a waste of time. For the sake of efficiency they resort to shortcuts, like attacking their opponents, banning certain activities, or killing an issue for fear of residual problems.

Some authorities may fear that if a given issue is allowed to bloom it may jeopardize their personal interests. It would be best to roll up the movie screen midway through, they reason, than let viewers find out the field hasn't been paid for. The public's enjoyment is sacrificed for the sake of the face of the organizer. The disappointed audience quietly head home.

Likewise, silence reigns after headline news suddenly disappears following the killing of an issue. The topic is banished from discussions and seminar halls, and even shunned in the chitchat in street-side warungs. The issue gradually disappears.

It is remarkable that an issue can be shot down so precisely, an admirable feat that requires impeccable timing. The government allows an issue to develop, then snuffs it out without warning.

The public gets the hint to completely retreat from the issue without a fuss.

For all its efficiency, the method has one drawback. It doesn't provide the government with the necessary feedback on the attitudes and aspirations of the public about the case.

The frequent use of this gag makes the public grow increasingly cynical about the good intentions of the government in settling a case within public expectations.

The people's cynicism has made them reluctant to go to the open field to watch more films. They are no longer confident that they will be able to watch the entire film.

Killing issues important to the public undermines the government's legitimacy and further dwindles the support of a people who have rarely been involved in solving their own affairs.

The writer is a criminologist at the Social and Political Sciences Faculty of the University of Indonesia.