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.