Mapping Indonesia's legal reform

By Meuthia Ganie-Rochman

JAKARTA (JP): How do we kick off legal reform in Indonesia? The whole system looks messy. The court system is still widely regarded as a state-run mafia. The police as the investigating authority are considered incompetent and lacking credibility.

The reform era has inherited a legal system which is abused by the authorities for their personal advantage. The whole system has been virtually untouched and still lives for itself.

The legal system suffers weaknesses in principles, orientation and institutions. Before the outset of reform, it lacked a human rights dimension and did not endorse equality. The legal system did not facilitate economic vibrancy.

Many laws are incomplete, confusing, and inconsistent. The structure of authority does not encourage transparency and does not ensure justice.

Now the government, the legislature and civil society organizations are busy in their efforts to bring about legal reform. These efforts include the anticorruption law and the setting up of bodies such as the National Ombudsman Commission and the Commission to Investigate Officials' Wealth.

However, we must first look at the goals of legal reform in order to be able to identify its direction, actors and orientation.

In modern times, the ideal aim of a legal system is to assure order, justice and human rights and to create public welfare. These goals also include the dimensions of procedure and facilitation. In practice, legal reform must define its less abstract goals and determine which ones are more urgent than others.

So far, the legal reform programs since the start of reform have touched on all aspects, although with different emphases being applied. With regard to substance, the stress has been on a reassertion of the principles of human and political rights. As regards the institutional aspect, the process has changed the relationship between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, as indicated by the setting up of new bodies.

To assess whether all of these efforts are proceeding in the right direction, one must check their relevancy to the country's main need -- economic recovery.

This must be achieved in two basic ways: increasing economic activity and saving resources from further "leakage". Investors are hesitant to come here because the state is incapable of maintaining order and security, its structure of authority is obscure, and because of its lack of orientation.

In fact, the position of the state in dealing with the various groups who make both justified and unjustified demands of the business community is being questioned.

Despite the 1999 anticorruption law, Indonesia remains among the most corrupt countries in the world.

The problem lies mostly in the state itself, which is very weak. Some bureaucrats argue that the cause is lack of money since the crisis. But the state is losing more crucial things: leadership, orientation, and the capacity to integrate itself. There is no longer a layer of national leaders pushing reform, step by step.

From the orientation aspect, there is a strong tendency for the political elite to shrivel the meaning of democracy.

None of the political elite are willing to give up control over the state's economic resources. Resources are being quarreled over in a bid to secure their positions.

Effective steps need to be taken. Firstly, the procedures, structure of authority, and evaluation of the legal institutions must allow both internal control and public scrutiny.

Secondly, given the attitude of the political elite, the process must involve civil society groups to watch over the system, take part in its design, and participate in the law- making process and the designing of the new system.

Laws can only be meaningful if people feel the need to follow the rules. For example, in the business world, people must perceive that the law protects contracts, puts a halt to frauds, and simplifies relations. Legal reform, therefore, is a process that involves people. They are the ground upon which the meaning of justice and the rule of law are contended.

Third, legal reform needs supporting institutions to give credible assessments and information about the parties involved. Such supporting institutions include accountants, appraisers, credit rating services, securities regulators, company and property registries, the private bar, private investigators, and the press. Some of these institutions play a monitoring role.

Fourth, the politics of civil society must be part of the process. This means strengthening civil organizations in the short term, and civil society in the long term through public policies.

The government should not be expected to take the initiative; the civic groups have a better understanding of their own needs.

Fifth, developing cooperation between the government and civic organizations in the process of legal reform. Cooperation in selected areas, such as making the Supreme Court the catalyst of change, would give greater assurance.

In doing so, a new relationship based on greater trust, would be constructed between the courts and the public at large.

Common strategic efforts are more likely to succeed than fragmented efforts.

The writer is a sociologist at the University of Indonesia.