RI stands at historical crossroads to democracy

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)