Marzuki Darusman: If I ran the rights body ...

Marzuki Darusman: If I ran the rights body ...

By Lela E. Madjiah

JAKARTA (JP): He strikes one as careful but assertive, calm
but passionate, intelligent but innocent, and a very attentive
listener. But Marzuki Darusman, 50, does not make a perfect host.
He didn't offer me a drink during our two-and-a-half-hour
conversation on Wednesday.

This came as a surprise, the more so because he is from a
family which attaches a lot of importance to hospitality. After
all, his father, Suryono Darusman, is a retired diplomat, and a
reputable one too.

But Marzuki, deputy chief of the National Commission on Human
Rights, had more important things on his mind than the fact that
his interviewer was dying of thirst. One thing is the upcoming
election of the commission's new chairman and rumors of his
appointment to this post to replace the late Ali Said. The other
two strong candidates are A.A. Baramuli and Munawir Sjadzali.
Another important issue is the commission's much-awaited final
report on the July 27 riots.

We agreed to focus on his personal life, but ended up
discussing human rights, politics and democracy instead. It is
easier talking to him about those issues than about his hobbies,
reading, playing chess for the Darusman Cup and classical music.
Easier than talking about his future -- "No, I'm far from well-
off!". He earns a living by running a consultancy firm from a
small office in Kartika Chandra.

Born in Bogor on Jan. 26, 1945, Marzuki is the eldest of five
siblings. His wife, Irmayanti, was a fellow student at
Parahyangan University in Bandung, where he studied International
Law. Earlier he had dropped out -- twice -- from the Bandung
Institute of Technology where he studied pure physics (1963) and
architecture (1965) and went to Germany to pursue the same
subject. The couple has a daughter, Kianti Raisa.

His political career has been rich and varied. He was chairman
of the Komite Nasional Pemuda Indonesia (KNPI), secretary-general
of Angkatan Muda Pembaruan Indonesia (AMPI), secretary-general of
the Cooperation Committee of ASEAN Youth, vice president of Asian
Youth, member of the West Java regional committee of the ruling
Golkar faction and member of the House of Representatives before
his appointment to the commission in 1993.

Maybe it's his fate to be in the spotlight, due to his family
background, the nature of his work and his personality.
Underneath his measured poise lies a bravery that often takes
people by surprise. Take for example his statement, made years
ago, that it was his ultimate goal to become president of this
republic.

At that time it was taboo to discuss the succession, but
Marzuki argued that "to become the president should be the
ultimate goal of every politician".

The fact that his father is a senior diplomat, and his
youngest brother Chandra Darusman a musician who devotes much of
his time to promoting the protection of local artists' copyright,
adds some glamor and fascination to his character.

What's taking the commission so long to complete the report on
the July 27 riots?

Public reports. It is our duty to check into every report that
comes in.

Shouldn't you have a deadline?

We will set a deadline. And the new reports that come in
mostly confirm what we already know, therefore we can safely
conclude that we have exhausted all sources of information.

How did the commission take Pak Harto's challenge to prove its
report on the July 27 riots?

We did not see it as a pressure, but a confidence in our
ability to come up with a complete picture of what happened. It
seems the government have not yet obtained a clear picture of
what happened and expect us to provide them with one.

But if that is perceived as a pressure, then we get pressures
from everywhere, including from the NGOs.

How do you ride between those two interests, to meet public
expectation and at the same time maintaining a good relationship
with the government?

It was difficult in the first six months. The NGOs suspected
us as a justification of the government. The latter saw us as an
opposition. Now we have eased back into a central position. We
are not a government instrument but not an NGO either.

Are there any discrepancies (in the number of victims, missing
persons) between the final report and the one submitted earlier?
(The commission's preliminary findings said five died, 149 were
wounded and 74 went missing in the riots. President Soeharto
challenged the commission to prove its report. The government has
said that only four people died and 28 injured in the incident.
It has never made mention of people missing.).

There are, particularly in the number of those missing, which
dropped quite significantly by about 20 because there have been
more families who reported that they have found their missing
family members. They have established contact, although the
missing people have not necessarily returned home. There is this
anxiety.

They are hiding.

Political activists, public leaders, all understand that after
such an incident people go missing. It's not something they worry
about. The question is, why did it happen? Why does a political
conflict tend to end up in violence here in Indonesia? The second
question, why is the public reluctant to participate in the
political process?

The case of missing people wouldn't happen if there were clear
rules in politics. Problems should be handled in a correct way,
openly, according to the existing law and in a healthy manner.
Every case that is considered to have caused a public disturbance
should be brought to court, and the violator fined, case closed.
There should not always be such far-reaching political
implications.

These two issues -- the tendency of conflict to end up in
violence and the problem of missing people -- are a problem for
the commission in upholding human rights in Indonesia. If the
police respected human rights in their handling of such cases,
people would not be afraid. On the contrary, they would share the
responsibility. The current situation reflects the quality of our
political atmosphere, an atmosphere marked with anxiety. Such
anxiety is not healthy and is not necessary in politics.

This will continue. And now the commission is raising the
issue of the missing persons, which is in contrast with what the
government does. The government never mentioned any missing
persons. The government sees the missing persons as a normal
phenomenon. We do not want to see this as a normal phenomenon.
Only criminals should have to avoid the police. Political
activists should not be afraid of the police. If this is seen as
normal, people in hiding will be considered criminals. It doesn't
make sense.

We are encouraging existing political institutions, including
the legal institutions, to curb those two trends. In a harsh
political atmosphere, there is a tendency to criminalize
political activities. In an open political system, differences in
opinion are not seen as a crime, there is no obligation to
conform.

This is difficult, considering our educational system, which
only creates yes-men. We are only taught to see things from one
perspective.

That's right -- a society with a uniform opinion confronted
with a complex world. The young people are aware of this, but not
the older generations.

So what Emil Salim (a former cabinet minister and now lecturer
at the University of Indonesia) said is true. That we have to
wait until the past generations are all gone before we can have
democracy, and differences of opinion.

We have to wait? But members of the past generations may live
longer due to better nutrition. A generation usually stays in
power for 25 years, and they have long outstayed their time.
There should have been a change in leadership in 1960. Because it
did not happen, it's a problem now. The new generation cannot
contribute to the leadership of this nation.

I believe we cannot wait. Democracy will not come by itself,
it is something that has to be built, that's why we cannot wait
until the state or the government gives it to us. Democracy
should be something we work for, something we develop.

But the young generation tends to be conservative, in the
sense that they are afraid to do anything for fear of losing what
they have.

But when they are faced with a situation when the country is
in danger, I am sure the young people will be patriotic and will
sacrifice.

The problem is, the older generations always recite a litany
of old political problems while the new generation looks to the
future. To inspire the young to do something for the country,
they need to be confronted with the future, real challenges and
hope, not past problems. They cannot understand what the past
generations had to deal with -- the 1948 and 1965 communist coups
-- despite the fact that those incidents posed a real threat to
the nation's existence. The young people are looking for their
own identity and will accept only logic.

I believe the young are ready to die for a society which gives
self-development and identity a place. They won't die for a
society which only wants them to conform. They will die for an
open, democratic society which respects human rights.

I see many young people joining non-government organizations.
There are around 10,000 NGOs and they are the manifestation of
young people who want to serve the public.

But for some people an NGO is nothing more than a job.

True, but there are many NGOs which serve as a place where
young people find themselves through working for the public. Not
all of them come from a poor background. The NGOs are a middle
class phenomenon, their activists can come from any level of
society, regardless of their socioeconomic backgrounds.

The NGOs are proof that there is always a segment of a
generation which works for the interest of the public, in spite
of the current political situation. The New Order politics did
not foresee a place for NGOs. The NGOs are a product of the New
Order, in spite of the structures it has created, which are the
organizations that only observe single ideology.

This is what's encouraging, that political ethos is inherent
in a nation.

You are very optimistic. I'm not.

That's understandable. Because for people like me and you, the
prospects of becoming a leader are very limited, due to the lack
of transition. Our generation has been denied their role by one
or two layers of generations. That's why in a normal political
system terms of leadership are limited, not only to limit power
but also to allow a healthy cultural cycle.

What about Thatcher, Kohl, Lee Kuan Yew?

Those are exceptions.

Back to the commission. Are you positive the new chairman will
be elected from among the existing members? And why wait for the
new chairman before signing the report on the July 27 riots?

It's not that we're waiting for the new chairman to finalize
the report. The new chairman will be elected on Oct. 1, and we're
trying to finish the report as soon as possible. It may be
completed before or after the election. It's just that the
chairmanship has been vacant for so long, plus the fact that
there are four memberships vacant, we tend to focus on the
election. We tend to choose among existing members, who have been
working together for the past three years. They have proved that
they can cooperate.

Why is it taking you all so long to elect a new chairman?

Because we all deeply respected Pak Ali (Ali Said died on June
28) there was a period of reluctance, but we have passed that
period. Besides, there are no deadlines for the election of a new
chairman. And then we were busy with one thing and another until
finally the July 27 riots...

Rumor has it that you are the most likely candidate.

If I become chairman ... I'm not really convinced that I need
to become chairman of the commission. If I do, it will take a lot
of convincing me that it's something that I need to do and
pursue. It will be better to have a chairman whose appointment is
well understood by the general public from various points of
view: backgrounds, seniority, relationship with the government...

As for me, people will find it difficult to understand my
appointment to the post because I create too many problems.

What do you mean?

If I chair this institution, the commission will not be
independent (he laughs) because I take sides. I side with change.
An institution like this requires stability, a symbol, a standard
which symbolizes stability. I tend to side with change. We cannot
have a chairman who is not taking sides, because by not taking
sides he is taking sides with not taking sides. Maybe it's my
fate to get involved in matters that warrant change, improvement.

It's not bad to want change. But if an institution is obliged
to insist on stability, then it cannot take sides. Taking sides
can mean many things -- taking sides with groups or
organizations. I'm not taking sides with groups or organizations,
but on matters which promote changes. With me as chairman, the
commission will find it difficult to be independent.

For example?

I am for including promotion of change on the agenda of the
commission. This will put it in conflict with the government. It
can contradict the government, the public. I am for changing the
establishment.

But human rights itself is prone to conflict, contradiction,
isn't it?

Yes, it is, and should be so. But that's when we are talking
about individuals, not an institution. An institution needs a
tempo, a rhythm which must not be pushed by the pull of speedy
changes. I tend to become too fast. I'm well aware of my image.
I'm not the perfect person for the post, maybe in the future...

Any hint from the government on the possibility of electing a
new chairman from outside?

No. There are possibilities. We have seven professors. We have
established the commission as an institution. Sometimes an
institution becomes synonymous with its chairman. This is
something we want to avoid. We want someone who will not be
identified as the institution.

Frankly speaking, it's difficult for me to see someone like
you working for the cause of the small people, the oppressed... I
mean, you were born into, and raised in such a well-to-do
environment. I'm not saying that you should be like Mother Teresa
in order to do what you're doing...

... (silent) It's a difficult question. I don't know how to
answer it because I never thought about that. If we thought about
it, it would seem that there must be some kind of an
accountability, why we did something. But working for the public
interest is a responsibility in itself that does not warrant an
explanation. If we want to become a businessman, for example,
maybe we need an explanation of why we do it, whether to help
promote economic growth, create a better society or channel
creativity.

It has to be seen from the political point of view. For me,
politics is a calling. The emphasis of what I'm doing is the
political dimension of the reality that there are in our society
people whose rights are still being violated, who are still
backward...

What Mother Teresa does is religious. Actually when we make
politics a call of duty, we give it a religious dimension.

But the commission observes a measured humanity which is not
sentimental, not charity, but a humanity which looks at human
suffering from the point of view of change in social and
political life. Human suffering is not something that cannot be
changed while we offer help solely out of kindness.

But you never feel out of place?

Never. It's never been my intention to give the impression
that this is something I have been wanting to do since I was a
child. This is what I want to avoid, because everybody has his
own perceptions, motivations...

The problem is, politicians often end up being accused as the
cause of the problems in society which they should have solved.

In the Indonesian context, we need to develop politics from a
profession into a calling. It is then easier to explain why in
political life we need to touch public interests, including human
rights issues.

My entry point was politics. Politicians will always face real
life problems if they fight for the common good. Politics is no
ordinary job. Anyway, all jobs should be a calling.

There are two dimensions in every politician: ideal and
practical. He needs to have practical skills to help solve
problems in society and to fight in the interest of the public.

But politicians do not have a place in our society, which only
accommodates executives and functionaries who do not have the
skill to fight for democracy because they are not politicians.

In Indonesia the opportunity to develop one's skills as a
politician is very restricted because basically politicians must
be allowed to take the initiative. Individual initiative is not
encouraged at all because of our common goal to develop our
economic life. Political life has become secondary.

There hasn't been any change?

No. No meaningful progress or change. It only looks that way.
Maybe it's good to introduce term limitations to allow
regeneration, but it cannot be done totally because we still need
experienced senior politicians to help solve problems.

This explains the accumulation of problems in various
institutions -- in the court, social and political organizations,
the House.

This is also related to the centralization of politics. When
everybody waits for instruction from the center, problems will
accumulate. Decentralization and deregulation will disseminate
power and the authority to make decisions and problems will be
solved at the earliest stage...

Decentralization in government and administration should occur
simultaneously with decentralization in politics. It's because
the essence of political life is the control of power. The
government is entrusted with serving the public but at the same
time should be open to control. That doesn't mean that because it
is elected every five years, it is subject to monitoring once
every five years only. Control and monitoring can be done
periodically to ensure good public control.

The problem is, criticism of the government often seems to be
made for the sake of it.

That is the key to the whole thing -- differences of opinion.
Often criticism is launched for the sake of showing one's
identity. This does not mean that the government should accept
every criticism. A government can govern if it has the support of
one of the social political parties which wins an election. When
there is a wrong policy or if a policy is criticized by the
public, the concerned party is equally responsible. To guarantee
good government, there should be a mechanism which allows
sociopolitical organizations to control the government. There
will be interaction between the government and the organizations
that control it, especially organizations which do not win the
election.

The government should have people who are skilled in
dealing with such criticism.

But once the criticism is in the public domain, it will affect
public opinion. The danger is, the public tends to believe that
whatever the government does is wrong and whatever its critics do
is always right.

That can happen. The press, like every profession, needs a
control mechanism, professional selection. Indonesia is not ready
for this. Professionalism exists when there is healthy
competition. If there is no healthy competition, no qualitative
selection in the press, the public will end up with a press that
abuses the rules of the game. Similarly, the public will end up
with political leaders who are manipulated by a dominant power,
which in the press is its claim of having the only truth.

The press should always create doubt, skepticism, among the
public, because that is its role. But when it has gone too far,
when its doubt is no longer tempered by its professionalism, it
will lose its integrity.

But government officials often are not inspiring, such as in
the case of the fire in the Kembang market in Bogor. The mayor
insulted the victims by suggesting that the bodybags contained
cat carcasses. Such statements are symptomatic of the unhealthy
relations between the press and the government. It is to be hoped
that the government show that such statements are not acceptable.

There is public doubt about the integrity of public
institutions, partly due to the government's inability to share
control in the forming of public opinion. Public opinion is open
to control by anyone, and that's why the government should allow
its supporters to influence public opinion. But even the ability
of government supporters to influence public opinion is limited
because to do so requires freedom of speech, freedom to express
one's opinion. Here we come across another constraint.

The public is more mature, problems become more complex --
poverty, social imbalance, human rights violations are now
political problems. If politics cannot be made to serve its
function, then the problems of poverty, social imbalance and
human rights violations will never be solved.

Could you name any great politicians in Indonesia?

Pak Harto. He's a great politician. There are many actually,
but they have had no chance to develop. Tadjuddin Noer Said (a
vocal Golkar House member) who is respected outside Golkar, and
Hamzah Haz (another vocal House member of the United Development
Party faction)

But his critics would say that power is Pak Harto's only tool
for survival.

To stay in power for over 25 years is extraordinary. He is a
good manager and his long rule is not attributable to power only.
He has the ability to choose the right people to assist him, it's
a talent. It's easy to understand, he has a strong character...
What I mean by a good politician here has nothing to do with
ideas, which are often just rhetoric with many politicians. Pak
Harto's ideas, thoughts and vision belong to the nation -- that's
his rhetoric.

What do you think of Megawati?

She is, at the moment, a political symbol because the
situation demands that of her, not because of something that she
has developed herself. I still cannot grasp her political
perspectives. She is a phenomenon of the past decade, a symbol of
the people confronted with the establishment. They are hoping for
some changes in elementary matters such as justice, and a sense
of participation. Both should have been initiated by the
government. If the government had taken the initiative in those
two basic things, there would not have been this symbol. It's
because there is no other symbol, and her father's big name makes
up half of her charisma. Her own perspectives are not yet clearly
formulated, her economic policies and political views not clearly
outlined.

I believe her politics is based on her conscience, regardless
of whether or not she has an organizational skills. I don't know
if she has a good political instinct, because what she's doing is
against political sense.

Could you explain?

She's not willing to compromise.

Now the easy questions.

The easy questions, hmm...

What kind of a person are you at home?

Oh, hm, not much different from other people, there's never
enough time, always in a hurry, spending Saturdays and Sundays
with the family. That, too, often has to make way for other
things.

How much do they pay you at the commission?

It's not a monthly wage, but a honorarium. Rp 2.5 million, the
same government officials get.

Do you have problem sleeping, with those pressures from all
directions?

Never. Like a submarine, there's a place for everything and
when it's time to sleep, I enter my sleeping "box".

By the way, why did you enter politics?

It's the only door opened for me ha ha ha!

Window A: The NGOs are a product of the New Order, in spite of the
structures it has created, which are the organizations that only
observe a single ideology. This is what's encouraging, that political
ethos is inherent in a nation.

Window B: On Pak Harto: To stay in power for over 25 years is
extraordinary. He is a good manager and his long rule is not
attributable to power only. He has the ability to choose the right
people t assist him, it's a talent.