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?