Mapping Indonesia's legal reform

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.