Political turmoil brings more media freedom

Political turmoil brings more media freedom

JAKARTA (JP): For most of Soeharto's 32-year rule, Indonesians
realized there were words that could not be said in public.
"Succession" and "regime" were just two of them.

Government critics and opposition leaders might have uttered
such words, but most people only whispered them. There was no
legal basis for editors not to use the words, but experience --
from formal and informal warnings -- taught them how to tow the
official line in order to survive.

The trend changed just weeks before Soeharto resigned on May
21, when newspapers, weeklies and television and radio stations
seemed to have thrown away any fear of the government's wrath by
openly asking the 77-year-old president to step down.

It was like an invisible barrier which had pressed around the
local media for decades had been pulled down. The media rode the
winds of reform initiated by students and intellectuals, and
became more direct in its reports of political events.

According to mass communications expert Ashadi Siregar and
sociologist Ignas Kleden, the phenomenon is normal when a country
experiences political turmoil.

"Media freedoms cannot be separated from... current social
and political dynamics," said Ashadi, a lecturer at the
University of Gadjah Mada (UGM) in Yogyakarta. "If there was
enough space for political dynamism, the media would
automatically have greater leeway."

Ignas agreed and said the media had also played a part in the
pressure for reform which has determined the course of
developments in Indonesian politics.

"(Public) pressure for reform would not have worked without
the help of the media in disseminating the campaign's message,"
said Ignas of the Socio-Political and Economic Studies Research
Center.

The two scholars agreed that freedom of the press, however,
could again be lost unless some measures were taken to ensure
that the new regime did not become repressive.

Ignas said: "In a time of political transition, the media
always tends to be more free. Whereas in time of stability, the
media is more tied up."

Ashadi, who is also the head of the communications department
at UGM's School of Social and Political Sciences, said: "In the
early years of the New Order, the media was so free... until
early 1974 when the media started to be repressed by the regime."

The government cracked down against student activists in 1974
following a Jan. 15 antigovernment demonstration.

The repression of the media continued well into the 1990s,
Ashadi said. He added that Tempo weekly was banned in 1994
because it reported "hidden conflicts" among government
officials.

Now, Ashadi said, political confrontation had become so open
that the media could do nothing but report it. "Now it is
government officials who go public with their confrontation...
even Soeharto had to convene news conferences to explain his
position."

Ashadi cited the recent conflicting statements by House
Speaker Harmoko and Armed Forces Commander Gen. Wiranto regarding
the House leaders' call for Soeharto to resign.

"The media just reported (without having to conduct
painstaking investigation) that the two officials were engaged in
political confrontation," he said.

Ashadi concluded that the dynamism of the media was therefore
dependent on the dynamism of political and economic systems
outside the media.

"So, media freedom does not intrinsically belong to the
media," he said.

Ignas disagreed. "For better or worse, the media must retain
its own freedom in order to fight for the public interest. It
must look for its form and position where it can play without
being affected by the social and political situation," he said.

"The media must represent the interests of the people. Now it
seems that the media is in that position... however, with a new
regime coming, with its own working agenda, then the media will
be tested again," he said.

As an agent of change, Ignas said, the media must keep its
independence from outside factors. (aan)