People grow more critical of government and its policies

People grow more critical of government and its policies

People grow more critical of the govt

By Tedy Novan & Gin Kurniawan

YOGYAKARTA (JP): The Islamic University of Indonesia's legal
and political expert, Moh. Mahfud MD, has been studying people's
struggle to attain justice.

Mahfud said people are becoming more critical and outspoken
against the government, a result of national development
programs. He said although people were taking the government to
court, in reality most cases were still being dismissed.

Mahfud, who obtained his doctoral degree in 1993 at the Gadjah
Mada University with a dissertation on how political
configuration affects the law, recently shared his views with The
Jakarta Post.

Question: Most cases against the government are dismissed in
court. Why is this?

Answer: Political lawsuits against the government have no real
chance. Our judiciary is not yet independent. Judges are not free
to act... the law tends to protect and defend the interests of
the government.

Q: So what drove some people to take the government to court?

A: The more intelligent a community becomes, the greater their
demand for law enforcement, according to studies conducted by
(American political expert) Daniel S. Lev. Global connections
make people more observant... better able to see, feel and
understand ideas from outside (of their own community). There is
cognizance. There has to be "valves" to let off steam. If we keep
it bottled up, destruction would follow.

Q: Judges' decisions in political cases are usually colored with
political, out-of-court decisions. What do you think of this?

A: The laws here depend on the law enforcers. Those in the
bureaucracy are usually co-opted, while those who are not become
"brave". Politics has such a strong hold over law that it has to
be balanced through the right process.

Q: What do you mean by "balance"?

A: The time has come for us to review the political configuration
because it is a product of the time when Indonesia was in a state
of chaos. (The rules) made between 1966 and 1969 enabled the
government to deal with just about any kind of situation and all
sorts of people. The system is now imbalanced.

The electoral law that was produced in 1969 and is still valid
has to be overhauled because it tends to favor certain poll
contenders and supports the status quo.

Q: What laws would protect the people?

A: The present laws produced by the New Order administration
would protect the government, and they are bolstered by pragmatic
actions for the sake of national development.

If the government sees something as "good", then violating the
laws or rules for the sake of development is justified. Take for
example, the 1994/20 government regulation on foreign capital
which drew as much as 90 percent foreign investment. (It
contradicts) the 1966 Law No. 11 on national investment.

Q: Was it different in the Old Order days?

A: The Old Order was authoritarian in that violations were
committed blatantly. The New Order "created" an authoritarian
administration through legal engineering. It produces laws and
"hit" (those who oppose it) in constitutional ways. This is what
is called "attribution". The New Order government cannot be sued
because formally and legally, it is in the "right" position, even
though substantially it is "mistaken".

Q: You said the people are becoming more critical. Is this the
way the New Order maintains the status quo?

A: I believe this cannot go on. People are becoming more mature
and can find their own way. We now see the emergence of a civil
society. History has shown that no power could prevent people
(from moving and finding their way).

Q: Where would change take place?

A: Change would depend on President Soeharto. He controls Golkar
(with 70 percent of seats at the House of Representatives), the
Armed Forces. The general election (would not effectively bring
change). But there's a saying, Salus Populi Supreme Lex, the
power of the people becomes the supreme law. This force is
becoming even stronger now.

Q: What about the election regulations?

A: My studies showed the laws on the general election, on
people's representatives and on political parties are very
conservative. With the three laws, Golkar could never lose (the
election). The laws become the justification for power, while
their content can be interpreted at will by the government.

Q: Under these laws, how do elections fare?

A: The "fiesta of democracy" (the general elections) are formally
run, but they have no substance. The political parties and the
House members are mere accessories of democracy, they do not
aspire to democracy.

Q: In what ways can the laws be improved?

A: It's time to convince Pak Harto and Golkar that change has to
take its course. Then everything would follow Pak Harto.

Q: Do you see change imminent in the near future?

A: I do not see it happening in politics. The political format
won't change even though there has been a process of
accommodation at the executive level. The force of Moslems, for
instance, has been accommodated by President Soeharto, and then
the ball keeps rolling. But the approach of ulemas, Muhammadiyah
(Moslem organization) and the Association of Indonesian Moslem
Intellectuals, to Pak Harto, would not change the political
format.