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)