Power relations in our society

By Hendardi

JAKARTA (JP): Power relations always occur in the community. With regard to human rights, the power system in the community consists of concrete social links for each individual as well as for social groups.

The power system often guarantees and protects human rights. On some occasions the operational power system dominates human rights and breaks the struggle of the individual and social groups to impose their rights. This results in two limitations of the power system. The first one is very tolerant and protective towards human rights, while the other is repressive.

Considering the two limitations we can explain power relations between the state and the civil society in the context of the human rights struggle conducted by various community groups.

Not all states or communities in the world apply the democratic system. In a democratic system, state power is subjected to the people's sovereignty. Individuals who enjoy freedom establish a civil society.

In a democratic political system, the state system is based on legitimation obtained from the people. The legitimate forms include the general election (House of Representatives and the government), the local election (senators and mayors), and the referendum (determination of opinion) which are conducted in a just and honest way in the process of decision making.

A democratic state is implemented on the basis of the people's sovereignty. It can be said that symbolically the people dominate the state system. Therefore, it is logical that the state not only guarantees but also protects human rights.

Formally, in a democratic state, human rights become part of the legal system. They is identical with the existing positive law. This means that human rights violations are not only amoral normatively, but more importantly, are a criminal act legally.

Therefore, if the police resort to torture in handling a criminal case, the police officers concerned can be charged with crime against the accused. In the judicial system, the rights of the accused are guaranteed and protected. If the police suspect somebody and then detain him, the police officer in charge has to read the rights of the suspect before detaining him.

With concrete guarantee and protection of human rights, citizens can enjoy their freedom without annoyance from the state apparatus. On the other hand, the state is forced to meet its obligations to serve public interest because sovereignty is in the people's hands. This includes providing public transportation, health, education, a clean and safe environment and social allowances.

Another characteristic of a democratic state is accountability. State officials occupy certain functions by virtue of the people's mandate. Therefore, if they fall short of their obligations they have to account for it.

With accountability in force, the officials and the police are not at all immune to legal charges if they make errors. If human rights violations or corruption so occur, the usual way out is resignation. Officials are humiliated if the scandal is exposed in the media, so they prefer to resign rather then become a bigger target of criticism.

There is another political area which develops in a non- democratic political system. The state apparatus in a democratic country does not base its legitimacy on the people's voice. In the early 1970s we were acquainted with the term "floating mass" to denote people in the villages. In this case, people's sovereignty is disregarded.

In non-democratic states the state apparatus does not feel the necessity to account for its power to the people. This is only logical because the basis for legitimation does not stem from the people.

The state apparatus also does not feel the need to guarantee and protect human rights. On the contrary, it breaks the efforts of community members who fight for human rights. Thus, community members do not obtain freedom but are forced to bow to state power.

These non-democratic conditions are increasingly expanded by the practice of human rights norms that are not part of the existing legal system. The legal system itself becomes a tool to break the human rights struggle. On the whole, the state apparatus is oppressive toward human rights.

In human rights matters concerning the international community, the state apparatus often urges foreign parties not to dictate or interfere with its home affairs. This is an excuse to cover up human rights problems at home.

Citizens generally do not have freedom in non-democratic states. The tolerance of the state apparatus and the space for freedom is very limited. This space can be expanded, but can also be closed again subject to state power. It is not the state that dedicates itself to the people, but the citizens must serve the state.

A case of human rights violations can only be seen via power relations. In this context we can determine who is in power and who has no power, or who is more powerful among the powerful.

The human rights violators, inevitably, are the entities who occupy a more powerful position. They may be members of the state apparatus or other powerful groups. Victims of human rights violations are usually the weak and the powerless.

The legal and judicial system also strives for conservation of human rights violations if the system cannot guarantee and protect the weak and powerless. Workers in relation with their employers, farmers with those who have expropriated their land, NGOs with the state apparatus, crime suspects with the police, and subordinates with their superiors, are power relations which highlight the potential of everyone being victims and actors of human rights violations.

Workers, farmers, NGOs, crime suspects and subordinates occupy a weaker and less powerful position compared to other members of society and therefore they often become victims of human rights violations.

Moreover, it is not possible that the actors of human rights violations are the weak and powerless, because they do not have the tools to commit human rights violations. In their weak and powerless position, they only hope for guarantee and protection.

The author is executive director of the Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights Association (PBHI).