Reform starts with the men behind the law

Reform starts with the men behind the law

When it comes to legal reforms, Indonesia seems to have done
everything that is required by the book, at least, on the surface
of it.

This year, the People's Consultative Assembly introduced the
third package of amendments to the 1945 Constitution. The House
of Representatives endorsed dozens of new laws. Both presidents,
Abdurrahman Wahid until July and Megawati Soekarnoputri since
then, duly signed these new legislations into law. There has
never been any shortage of new presidential decrees, government
regulations and ministerial decrees.

And then there were the hundreds of bylaws issued by regional
administrations, taking full advantage of their newfound powers
accorded to them under the regional autonomy arrangement that
began on Jan. 1.

With all these new legal instruments instituted as part of the
national reforms -- both Abdurrahman and Megawati were elected on
reformist platforms -- you would have thought Indonesia would be
well on its way to becoming a civil, peaceful and prosperous
nation.

Wrong.

Indonesia in 2001 is as messy, if not even messier, than it
has ever been in the last three years, in spite of, or some would
say because of, these measures in the legal sector.

The national reform agenda seems to have stalled during 2001.
Indonesia is far from the civil and peaceful -- let's not even
dream about prosperous -- society that we all crave for.

There has never been any doubt in anybody's mind that judicial
reform is an important, if not the most important part, of the
overall agenda of national reforms.

Some would even argue that without reforms in the legal
sector, there couldn't be any real reforms.

Reforms in the economic laws, for example, are intended to
help secure the process of economic recovery. Reforms in the
political laws are intended to strengthen the legal foundation to
build a more democratic political system. Reforms in the laws
against corruption are intended to build a clean government and
promote good governance. Reforms in human rights laws are
intended to provide greater protection of people's rights and to
prosecute those who violate these rights.

But instituting new laws and regulations alone is apparently
not enough.

Several panelists at a discussion held by The Jakarta Post
said the most important aspect of judicial reform is in changing
the mentality of the people who administer and enforce the laws.

You can introduce as many amendments to the Constitution as
you want, pass new legislations or issue new regulations, but in
the wrong hands, these legal instruments mean little in terms of
improvement in the lives of the people in this country.

"Our biggest problem is really in the administration and
enforcement of the laws," one panelist said. "A law is nothing.
It only has substance if and when it is enforced."

Therein probably lies the problem.

The public image of the law enforcers -- the police and the
government attorneys -- and the law administrators -- the judges
and the courts -- has hit its lowest ebb precisely when it
matters most.

And these enforcers and administrators have no one but
themselves to blame for failing to win the confidence of the
public they are supposed to serve.

If the public regards the legal enforcers and the
administrators with contempt, it is easy to see why many also
view the law itself with contempt.

From here, you're just one step short of anarchy.

If people no longer believe in the law, they are inclined to
break it.

This is exactly what is happening in Indonesia today.

More and more people have stopped believing in the law and in
the legal system in protecting their lives and property. And
because they think that the law cannot protect them anymore, many
people have simply taken the law into their own hands.

Can you blame them?

Another panelist attributed the failure of the judiciary
system not solely on the legal sector, but on the entire social
and political infrastructure -- the political, economic, social
and cultural aspects -- that support the legal system.

These "legal sources" or infrastructure are supposed to ensure
that civil rights are respected and obligations are carried out.

The new administration unfortunately is not providing the
necessary political and financial support to see to it that new
laws are effectively carried out, according to the panelist.

Evidence of this lack of commitment is provided by the failure
of the executive and legislative branches of the government to
see through the prosecution of people of the old regime for
corruption and for gross human rights violations.

"The effectiveness of law enforcement must ultimately depend
on the presence of legal sources that support the implementation
of the laws," the panelist said. It certainly does not depend on
the number of new laws and regulations enacted.

Going by the trends of 2001, therefore, the civil society
movement's primary goal of restoring the supremacy of law remains
an illusive dream.

What can be done about this?

A stronger commitment from the government, both the executive
and legislative branches, would certainly go a long way.

The judiciary system does not work in a vacuum, and its
effectiveness in dispensing justice and in promoting a more
humane civil society ultimately depends on the socio-political
setting in which it operates.

But as one panelist noted, neither the present government nor
the major political parties have shown the leadership that is
needed to lead the nation on the path of reform.

"We need to mobilize social forces, for example, in the
anticorruption campaign, so that the new government is clean
(free) from corrupt practices," he said.

Unfortunately, he noted that pro-democratic forces, which
worked hand in hand in bringing down the Soeharto regime in 1998,
are in disarray. They must first consolidate and reorganize
themselves to be able to make meaningful changes.

Even more important, however, is reforming the mentality of
the people who enforce and administer the law.

The pervasive corrupt mentality within law enforcement
agencies and in the judiciary developed over time during the
Soeharto regime.

Those who run the country's courts, the prosecution offices
and the police today are still products of the Soeharto era. To
expect them to change overnight is to ask for a miracle.

Any move to reform the judiciary in Indonesia -- and this is
indeed a pressing agenda -- must start with some house cleaning
first. The National Police, the Attorney General Office and the
Supreme Court must first put their own houses in order.

In the meantime, there are ways to prevent, or at least to
minimize the corrupt practices, that is by instituting stringent
regulations and establishing independent watchdog agencies who
are ready to cry foul at every sign of irregularity.

Some of these have already been put in place.

But would they be effective?