Leadership dispute causes crisis at legal aid body
Leadership dispute causes crisis at legal aid body
By Ariel Heryanto
SALATIGA, Central Java (JP): The dispute over the recent
election of a new leader for the Foundation of the Indonesian
Legal Aid Institute seems to have reached a serious stage. This
is the impression media reports give. It is obvious, however,
that no one wants the respected foundation to break apart.
The dispute should be seen in a wider context, rather than
limiting attention to the prominent figures involved in the
crisis.
What is astonishing is the resemblance of the case to last
year's leadership crisis at Satya Wacana Christian University in
this town. Although not a carbon copy, the similarities are too
stunning to be ignored.
Are the similarities merely a coincidence? How have societal
changes due to rapid industrialization affected each conflict?
Will leadership crises hit other middle-class institutions?
The two institutions were struck at the peak of their
progress. Indeed, what happened to the legal aid body this month
can be seen as an explosion of years of vent up problems. This
was also the case at the university. The many conflicts have
surprisingly burst into the open on a devastating scale and with
an alarming impact.
There was no direct intervention from outsiders, as has
happened at many other troubled middle-class institutions. This
point is important especially due to both institutions pro-
democracy leanings.
It is equally wrong to see the conflicts as a catastrophe in
democracy. Apparently such a conflict is a result of over
achieving.
If the institutions had not grown so rapidly the conflicts
would likely not have taken place. Success led to prominent
figures and vested interests.
It is also interesting to ask if efforts to institutionalize
democracy must undergo a conflict with the very spirit of
democracy itself. Are pro-democracy elements, which tend to
romanticize radicalism, at odds with organizational discipline
that tends to demand compromise and consensus?
Many more resemblances can be found in the two leadership
crisis. Like the legal aid body case, the trigger of the
explosion at the university was what was seen as the undemocratic
election of its leader. Both leadership elections were rejected
after requests were made to postpone the election process. In
both cases the elections were held anyway.
The two candidates at the two institutions resemble each
other. Both candidates are considered willing to compromise with
the authorities, while their rivals are seen as more loyal to the
group's ideals.
Like at the legal aid body, the final election process at the
university was monopolized by an elite body. The special right to
choose the chairman, entrenched in both institutions, is not the
problem. Only in this decade has the special right created
problems due to changes at both institutions in their interaction
with outside parties.
It is remarkable that the elite bodies have a similar way of
thinking and similar language. The legal aid advisory council
agreed to disagree with its opposition but asked them "not impose
their will". This was also the argument used by the university's
elite body when it made a controversial decision on the election
of the rector.
Following the controversial elections, those who were
responsible for the election as well as the elected leaders of
both institutions responded in the same manner. They admitted
violating the election procedure and admitted the election was
not approved by all sides. Nevertheless, they asked the
protesters not to make an issue of it, let alone demand another
election.
They asked all parties to accept the decision and support the
newly elected leaders in order to bring peace to both the
institutions. The request was rejected outright at the
university. The legal aid body has not reached a conclusion.
The legal aid body's conflict basically concerns only two
groups. The university's conflict pits the foundation personnel
and the rector against the foundation's elders, and the lecturers
against students.
The Church, the founder of the university, is also involved.
Its decisions have repeatedly been ignored by the foundation and
the new rector. The crisis caused thousands of students and their
parents to suffer.
In the legal aid body the advisory council complained about
terror and door-pounding harassment from protesters. At the
university, the intimidation was targeted at those who rejected
the new leadership. The university was the first institution to
experience a leadership conflict in the 1990s. Others seem to be
following suit.
The new university rector quickly declared his wish to embrace
all his detractors. Exactly the opposite has happened. Violence
and iron-hand policies were employed to crush the rector's
opponents, and hundreds of million rupiah of lecturers' pay was
expropriated. May the legal aid body be spared this misfortune.
The writer is a sociologist and a researcher living in
Salatiga.