RI stands at historical crossroads to democracy

With wave after wave of violence rocking Indonesia and no end to antigovernment student protests in sight, prominent lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis takes a hard look at what's behind the unrest...

Question: Why are students continuing to stage protests now that the Special Session of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) is over?

Mulya: Because the MPR Special Session failed to meet a number of key demands for reform, particularly to abolish the Armed Forces' socio-political role, accelerate the process of democratization and eradicate corruption, collusion and nepotism.

This indicates that the government, which exerts a strong influence over the MPR, is not prepared to see through adequate reforms. It is therefore only natural that students are disappointed with the results of the session and continue to stage antigovernment demonstrations.

Q: Why does the government still appear to be dragging its feet in the investigation of former president Soeharto?

M: The sluggish pace indicates that the government has little desire to investigate and prosecute Soeharto, even though the MPR has issued a decree obliging the government to investigate all high-ranking government officials, including our former president.

We heard that the government is planning to appoint an independent team to investigate Soeharto but that team and the decree would both be unnecessary if the government was serious about the matter and had the political will to back up its intentions.

That is why students doubt that Attorney General Andi Muhammad Ghalib is earnest and that is why they went to his office to present him with a chicken on Tuesday -- they say he lacks the courage to bring Soeharto to justice.

Q: What do you think about the use of volunteer security guards to help the military safeguard the MPR Special Session?

M: It shows that the government has misinterpreted the Constitution and that it is willing to institutionalize the politics of violence.

The Constitution only states that members of the public have the right to defend the country against foreign attack and does not allow for lines of battle to be drawn between segments of our nation's civilian population.

If some people did not agree with the need to convene the MPR in a Special Session, that was their constitutional right. They should therefore not have had to face the risk of physical conflict with their fellow citizens.

Q: Why has the government accused a number of leading opposition figures of committing treason just because they signed a communique calling for the appointment of an interim presidium?

M: It is because the nation, including the government, is not yet mature enough to face differences of opinion. The communique is just a manifestation of civic responsibility -- opposition and disagreements are an integral part of democracy.

I do not think the signatories to the communique had any intention of committing treason. Similar calls have been by a wide variety of people and organizations and have never been deemed to be against the law.

So the charge of treason is arbitrary and can be regarded as an attempt to silence opposition activists and distract attention from the violent clashes between security personnel and demonstrators in which over a dozen people died.

Q: How do you reconcile charges of corruption laid against businessman Arifin Panigoro with the fact that he happens to be a strong supporter of the reform movement?

M: I see something strange there. He might be corrupt but to charge him during the economic crisis is discriminatory. Other companies, including state ones, have also failed to repay debts obtained through the issuance of commercial papers so why hasn't the government brought the same charges against them?

Arifin's case is actually a civil one, which can be dealt with under civil law.

Q: What do you think about last Sunday's clash in Jakarta which left 14 people dead and a number of churches burned or damaged?

M: It was a set back to the process of nation building. In fifty years as an independent nation, we should have become accustomed to plurality and ethnic and religious diversity, which is an inherent part of our society.

Regardless of whether the clash was spontaneous or engineered, it demonstrates the New Order government's failure to strengthen the fabric of this nation.

Q: What does the clash signify?

M: The clash indicates that we are at a crossroads in our history. If we take the wrong road, we will enter into a dark era marked by further deterioration in the economy and ethno-centrist disintegration.

In order to avoid taking the wrong road, we must uphold the rule of law, accelerate the process of democratization, introduce clean governance and develop a more civilized society. All parties must realize that we are at a critical juncture and must therefore restrain ourselves and avoid further confrontations. (riz)