One barrier removed

Even though the ruling will not become effective until 2009, it is no exaggeration to say that by restoring the rights of former members, and relatives of former members, of the outlawed Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) to run in legislative elections, the Indonesian Constitutional Court has made a historic decision.

By that ruling, a milestone has been laid in Indonesia's contemporary history that could well have far-reaching implications for the future of democracy in this country.

Responding to the request submitted by 13 former members of the PKI, the court ruled that Article 60 g of Law No.12/2003 on legislative elections was contradictory to the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal rights for all citizens in government. As Constitutional Court Chief Justice Jimly Asshidiqie, who read out the decision, noted, "The right to vote and the right to be elected are guaranteed by the Constitution, the law and international conventions. Therefore, any restriction, violation, resistance or elimination of these rights is a violation of citizens's rights."

Article 60 g of Law No.12/2003 stipulates that "members of the outlawed Indonesian Communist Party, including its mass organizations, or individuals who are either directly or indirectly involved in the G-30S/PKI movement or other outlawed organizations" are barred from becoming legislators at all levels of state administration.

Although it should be noted that former PKI members and their relatives are still prohibited from running in presidential elections, Tuesday's Constitutional Court ruling brings to a close a 38-year period of denial of the political rights of hundreds of thousands of Indonesian citizens. These citizens were regarded, by the former New Order government of President Soeharto, as being somehow linked with the "G30S/PKI" -- which is the popular term for the abortive coup of Oct.1, 1965.

It should also be noted that thousands of Indonesians who were in no way involved in the coup were imprisoned or banished to labor camps in remote and inhospitable areas of the archipelago, simply because they were close friends with or blood relations of those who were involved. Indonesians, who lived through those crucial years under the New Order, will remember the care that people took to avoid being marked not "environmentally clean" -- which meant that they had abstained from any relations with those who were suspected of being "leftist." In other words, important as the Constitutional Court's ruling may be for those who were actually involved in the 1965 coup, for those who have been branded guilty by association, the decision means the official recognition, at long last, of their legitimate rights, which were so long denied.

However, gratifying as Tuesday's Court decision may be for those mentioned in the dictum, of even greater importance are the wider implications that the ruling inevitably must bring. The Constitution guarantees that no one will be discriminated against since all citizens are equal before the law. To date, however, it cannot be denied that discriminatory provisions in outdated and shortsighted laws and regulations are breaking up the nation into different groups and categories of citizens, thereby contradicting the cherished national ideal of "one country, one nation, one language."

Many Indonesians of Chinese ancestry, for example -- even those whose service to the nation is recognized by the state -- are still complaining about discriminatory treatment by state officials who act on the basis of discriminatory laws and regulations. In marriage, different laws apply to different groups. But if Indonesians are serious in their much touted ideal of forging one undivided nation out of this hodgepodge of hugely diverse groupings, then serious efforts must be made toward that ideal.

National unity and coherence is not something that Indonesians can take for granted. Rather, these are goals, which demand serious and constant effort to achieve and maintain. Imposing discriminatory laws and regulations that restrict the rights of ill-favored or minority groups is not the way to succeed. Wise and farsighted policies must honor and recognize that other national motto: unity in diversity.