More public involvement

More public involvement

Nearly every piece of new legislation or government policy
draws public protest as soon as it is announced. In a fledging
democracy like Indonesia, this is somewhat expected. People who
feel their interests will be harmed by a new law or policy will
try their best to prevent its implementation by taking full
advantage of their right to free expression, which is guaranteed
by the Constitution.

Some policies have drawn larger protests than others because
they affect a wider spectrum of society, like the planned
increase in fuel prices and power rates which drew large protests
this week. Laws or policies which affect specific groups in
society have drawn smaller protests, like the action by Bank
Indonesia employees against the appointment of Aulia Pohan as a
director of the central bank. Low-ranking government workers made
themselves heard this week by protesting against the planned hike
in structural allowances for upper-level civil servants.

While these protests seem perfectly acceptable in a democracy,
they could have been avoided or at least minimized if the public
had been given more time to air its views before the new laws and
policies were introduced. These protests indicate the public has
not been involved as much as it should be in the decision-making
process in this country.

The government and the House of Representatives seem to have
neglected one basic principle of democracy: public participation.
It is such a simple rule that it is too often forgotten. The best
way of ensuring the widest-possible public support is by
involving it in the process.

No decision, no matter how thoroughly discussed, is perfect.
But this is not an excuse for not holding public hearings in
drafting new laws and policies, especially if they affect the
interests of many people. Neither should deadline pressures,
whether in the name of efficiency or imposed by external forces,
deprive the public of its right to be heard. The decisions to
increase fuel prices and civil servants' allowances, and the
appointment of Aulia Pohan, were all made too swiftly. The
protests that followed were evidence that the public was
excluded from the decision-making process.

The fact that the House withdrew its support at the last
minute for the hike in fuel prices and the increase in allowances
for top-echelon civil servants also indicates this body's gross
shortcomings. The legislators may have been democratically
elected, but they have fallen short of expectations in acting on
behalf the people. Their hasty and noncritical endorsement of
government policies indicates the House is not far removed from
its past role as the government's rubber stamp.

This could be an indication of the poor skill, or lack of
experience, of the legislators. It could also be an indication of
a political system that requires politicians to put party loyalty
before everything else. Or it could be an indication of money
politics at play. Whichever the case, our representatives need to
put their House in order.

President Abdurrahman Wahid had the right idea when he
promised shortly after his election in October to try and touch
base with the people by holding regular dialogs. He may have
lived up to this promise, but one cannot help but feel that the
dialogs have not been effective, especially in light of the
protests opposing his policies. It would probably help if the
President were to open these dialogs to a wider section of
society. It also would help if the President did more listening
and less talking at these meetings. This, incidentally, is also
an advice that all politicians should heed.

The protests we have seen these past weeks, and the protests
that will occur in the coming weeks, are symptomatic of a young
and fledging democracy. They also come with security risks, as
these protests could easily turn violent. It will take a great
deal of wisdom on the part of the country's leaders to ensure the
public's right to freedom of expression is maintained while not
risking peace and order in the country. The government's
commitment to democracy is now being tested by these protests.

Holding more public hearings could well ease the tension and
reduce the risk to security and order. And if the government and
the House were sensitive to the people's aspirations, they could
fine-tune laws and polices accordingly to make them more
palatable to the people.