Soeharto's legislation needs total scrutiny

Soeharto's legislation needs total scrutiny

Despite widespread criticism, especially from Muslim-based
politicians, President Abdurrahman Wahid is unrelenting in his
stance on the need to revoke a 1966 decree of the Provisional
People's Consultative Assembly banning communism. Political
analyst J. Soedjati Djiwandono supports the President's
stance.

JAKARTA (JP): President Abdurrahman Wahid seems to be adamant,
and rightly so in my mind, in his proposal that the ban on
communism be lifted. The ban is against human rights, against
democracy and thus against humanity.

Indeed, I would argue that all past legislation passed by
Soeharto's New Order regime must be thoroughly reviewed, and I
believe much of it should be revoked.

If banning communism or banning an idea, an ideology, a belief
or a religion is wrong because it violates freedom of opinion,
then the opposite, that is imposing an idea, an ideology, or a
religion, even enforcing the teachings of a religion on its
followers, is equally wrong for exactly the same reason. Both are
equally wrong in moral terms.

Thus the marriage law, which stipulates that one must marry in
accordance with one's religion, which amounts to the imposition
of religion sanctioned by the law of the state -- and to make it
worse, only a religion recognized by the state -- and the law on
national education, which makes religious education compulsory,
are precisely the type of legislation that must not just be
reviewed, but revoked immediately. They both violate human
rights, particularly the right of freedom of religion.

I often cite these two laws, for they are the most notorious
cases in point. Other pieces of legislation of similar nature
passed during the Soeharto regime abound. It would take years of
scrutiny to review all the legislation from the Soeharto era,
passed by both the Provisional People's Consultative Assembly and
a series of "elected" People's Consultative Assemblies, as well
as all forms of government regulations, including presidential
decrees. But given the political will, moral courage and good
faith, this would not be an impossible mission.

Many of those defending the ban on communism, politicians and
intellectuals alike, even those who agree with the President "in
principle", have argued that "the people are not yet ready". Why
is it that when these politicians and intellectuals are
themselves not ready for a change, either because of their own
ignorance, their own fear or some other reason, they tend to
claim to represent the public at large? How do they gauge
people's readiness, anyway? Have they conducted some type of
research?

Barely two years ago, for days on end young university
students, free from sectarian interests and with hardly any
encouragement from their elders, staged continuous demonstrations
against then president Soeharto, demanding his resignation and
total reform. Who would dare say these young people were not
ready for change?

I am reminded of an article titled Is Democracy an Asian
Value? in Time magazine a few years ago, in which the writer
aptly compared the behavior of past colonial regimes with the
current regimes of many developing countries. The colonial
regimes were used to saying, "The people are not ready for
independence," while the current regimes are prone to say, "The
people are not ready for democracy."

Indeed, it is the duty of the representatives of the people to
give voice to popular aspirations. But the nature of the
Indonesian electoral system is such that it is difficult to see
how this is to be realized. In general elections, the electorate
practically give their representatives carte blanche. And short
of a district or single-member constituency system, they vote for
political parties rather than individual candidates. Moreover, it
is also the function of politicians and intellectuals alike not
only to represent, but also to lead the people toward progress.

Going back to the question of thoroughly reviewing past
legislation, however, the process should ultimately lead to a
reexamination of the very basis of the Soeharto regime's
legitimacy. Soeharto primarily based the legitimacy of his New
Order government on his allegation that founding president
Sukarno had deviated from the 1945 Constitution. However, he
never questioned the validity and legitimacy of Sukarno's decree
on July 5, 1959, reintroducing the 1945 Constitution.

Indeed, given the circumstances of the time, perhaps that was
the best alternative in order to overcome the deadlock in the
Constituent Assembly. It was a blessing in disguise, for the vote
on whether Indonesia was to be an Islamic or "nationalist" (i.e.
secular) republic was an abuse of voting as a democratic
mechanism. A mechanism of democracy should not be used for aims
contrary to the democratic ideals of equality and justice for all
and respect for human rights.

If the result had been a victory for the theocratic
aspirations, it would have resulted in a violation of freedom of
religion, and thus a violation of human rights. It would have
entailed the principle that while all men are equal, some are
more equal than others.

The implication is clear. We have to reconsider the status of
the 1945 Constitution itself, including its preamble, a possible
change to which is dreaded by many in the country, not
necessarily for the same reasons, and not inconceivably even for
opposing reasons.

I often wonder if those defending the 1945 Constitution,
particularly its preamble, are truly clear and honest in their
reasoning. Are the politicians of this country ready to think
along these lines? Short of exploitation by politicians, I, for
one, have no doubt about the readiness of the people.