Political control needs wisdom
By Mulyana W. Kusumah
JAKARTA (JP): Government actions in restraining political discussions and other gatherings have caused concern among those who fight for more democracy.
A string of recent incidents like the banning of certain speakers from appearing in public, the rejection of permits to hold discussions and the discriminative attitude in providing those permits are some examples.
The government coupled these actions with the application of the criminal law paragraph 510 KUHP, which so far has been applied on no less than 70 "pro-democracy activists" since June last year when poet W.S. Rendra and his 20 friends were fined by a Jakarta court for staging a demonstration.
On July 10 1995, Bondan Gunawan, an activist of the Democratic Forum, was questioned by police for allegedly having participated in an "unlawful" meeting, thereby trespassing Law No. 5/PNPS/1963. The law is no longer valid and its application is totally out of place since it was issued by the previous government (TAP/MPRS/1/1960 tentang Manifesto Politik).
The second paragraph of the law, for example, stipulates that the political activities in question should be in line with the revolution; carried out without trespassing the Guided Democracy and the Revolution, Socialism and national leadership (Resopim); and should not be a source of disturbance to the public.
It is indeed difficult to understand why a no-longer legitimate law is still in force.
Bondan Gunawan used his office to hold the discussion organized by the New Indonesian Foundation who presented American academic Robert Hefner as speaker. Hefner himself was detained by the authorities and questioned for six hours.
This has led the public to demand a clear and prudent explanation regarding the government's political security policy.
If the government opted to draft a regulation on permits for political activities it should consider the following points:
First, the regulation possibly might not be drawn up in contradiction to the spirit of paragraph 28 of the 1945 Constitution. As we know, paragraph 28 states that the nation desires to develop a democratic country under social justice and in line with human rights.
It is clear that it cannot in any way oppose the Broad Outlines of State Policy in terms of legal norms, goals, direction, priorities and the strategies of the current sixth five-year development stage.
It is also worthwhile to remember that in the second 25-year development plan, which started last year, political development is geared into a political system based on Pancasila Democracy which guarantees the function of political and social institutions, political communications and political openness.
The perceived regulation cannot possibly be drawn up by ignoring a law of a higher level. For example, Law No. 8/1985, stipulates that mass organizations are a means for the public to express their opinions and reserve the rights to hold activities to achieve their goals.
It seems, therefore, impossible that another regulation could be issued to repress the activities of these mass organizations.
Second, the government's plan to issue various rulings to control political communications and political activities of non- government organizations reflect a "fragmentary" frame of mind.
It is timely to issue a law on political participation of the people which guarantees the exercise of their political rights fully and guarantees the prevention of confusion on the part of the authorities in regulating these activities.
Third, there is a need for public debates on the exercising of political rights of the people involving the bureaucracy, legal officials, academics and public leaders.
The writer is a lecturer of political sciences at University of Indonesia and Executive Director of the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation.