The return of the old New Order measures?

The return of the old New Order measures?

Christine Susanna Tjhin, Jakarta

While all five presidential candidates vehemently flaunt their
commitment to upholding human rights and democratization, some
members of the House of Representatives and security authorities
seem to be throwing spikes down onto the path of civil society
toward democratic consolidation, preparing for an ambush.

On May 26, after a meeting with House Commission I, National
Intelligence Agency (BIN) chief A.M. Hendropriyono announced the
agency was probing into an earlier report concerning the
activities of 20 local and foreign non-governmental organizations
(NGOs).

These NGOs have allegedly produced reports that could
instigate national security concerns during the presidential
election. Further investigation to compile more incriminating
evidence is also said to be underway.

The government took a rather defensive position in response to
the NGOs' reports and claimed a right to take measures against
those who threatened national interests, which probably includes
expelling foreign workers from the country.

One House member was quoted as saying: "The activities of
those NGOs are harmless, really, but still quite irritating. If
we let them be, it would accumulate." Other House members even
encouraged security authorities to prevent and arrest, if
necessary, NGO activists who threaten security. Foreign ministry
officials and the interim coordinator for political and security
affairs also voiced a similar defense.

What is with these unnerving comments on NGO activities? But
wait -- more demoralizing comments coming through.

BIN'S warning that the government could use "old measures" to
deal with this issue, referring to the use of violence to clamp
down on government critics under the past New Order regime of
Soeharto (The Jakarta Post, May 28), sent a chill of deja vu down
the spines of the already fragile Indonesian civil society and
democracy.

This is a classic case of some authorities trying to make
heroes of themselves. They are creating a crisis, which is
nonexistent, between government critics and the national
interest.

Six years after the supposed collapse of the New Order regime,
the fact that such jaw-dropping statements are able to be made
again should raise the alert among civil society. Already, some
key figures of civil society have challenged the existence of the
NGOs' reports and have invited security authorities to be open to
dialog.

Yet the lack of clarity in regards any actual problems arising
from these earlier reports and the lack of goodwill on the part
of the government to share information have made it difficult for
civil society to engage in a constructive dialog with the
government. Instead of providing clear charges with credible
proof, the debate condescended to an issue of national interests
juxtaposed with some foreign analysts' critical reports and/or
local analysts' sell-out reports.

The issue is not about the narrow version of security and a
one-sided claim for national interest, and goes beyond the
extension of work permits for some foreign analysts: This is a
matter of constructive engagement between state and society in
providing each other with check-and-balances measures --
everybody's homework that is far from done.

Hostility is something that both government and "uncivil"
society are capable of meting out to each other, whenever they
choose. But what point could hostility serve other than zilch?

A need for constructive engagement between civil society and
the government has never been as pressing.

After the progress achieved through the legalization of the
act of legislative procedures, which gives the public an actual
right to participation in lawmaking, we must not allow state-
civil society constructive engagement take one (or more) step
back.

Democratization is fostered through freedom of speech and the
right to opinion without interference. Reports, be they those
made by local or foreign institutions, must be placed and seen
under the context of check-and-balances, not of power relations.

Criticisms against the government are meant to push it toward
constructive solutions, not to topple it, and if they are if
responded to with intelligence, would improve the quality of the
concerned government. Responded to poorly, however, nothing will
be gained.

Reports from NGOs are imperative in stimulating critical
discourse, not simply over the government's poor performance, but
also that of "uncivil" society. An unnecessary defensive attitude
by the government will not only tarnish its own substandard
reputation, but will also ensue in a backlash upon the progress
of democratization.

Will the government again sweep this issue under the carpet
until the presidential election is over, so that they do not have
to risk tarnishing their image? By the way, have any of the
presidential candidates raised this issue and responded
accordingly?

Well, never mind, we all know that their comments would be
unlikely to rise above the rhetorical. Or would they? Supposedly,
only the candidates can answer that.

Competent reports from NGOs are like golden eggs, and can
bring benefits to the government and especially -- since the
timing is appropriate -- all presidential candidates in
formulating sound policies for the country.

Pathetically, instead of making use of available resources,
the government is threatening to cut the goose's throat because
it is honking too loud.

The writer is a researcher at the department of politics and
social change, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS)