The year of living pragmatically without humanity

Munir, Head, Advisory Board Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), Jakarta

The House of Representatvies has at last chosen 23 new members for the National Commission on Human Rights. Controversy immediately arose when a number of important names in the human rights discourse did not pass the selection process, such as the lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis.

Maybe this was to be expected given today's political context. Surely we need not be disappointed and remain in misery; that would reflect ignorance of the fact we are living in an era of pragmatism, which is far from the values of human rights.

In this era of pragmatic politics, almost all political powers are securing short-term interests to gain access to the tools of power. These short-term agendas crucially determine political behavior and choices on where one must stand. Of course, in such a situation as this we are hard-pressed to find a substantial long-term agenda, which requires intelligence and a concrete perspective on humanity.

The selection of the commission members is indeed inseparable from the pragmatic battle for power. The sensitive issue of ending the impunity of authoritarian powers is certainly a serious political issue. Such powers have maintained themselves through their capacity to block demands for accountability through their impunity.

This has forced us to accept the virtually absolute power of those who enjoy this impunity. It is such a permanent, almost absolute authority that has become the center of all political interest groups.

The struggle between the various political powers has not only limited the role of the law, but has also accommodated the values developed by these actors who are untouched by the law. This is evident in the militaristic perspective and ideology adhered to by political parties.

An example is the issue of integration and the unitary state of the Republic, which provides no space for the issue of human security. For the sake of national unity, humans are not important; absolute power and control is more acceptable.

In mid-1999, numerous questions were raised by the international community about the absence of a political and legal system in Indonesia that could demand the accountability of human rights violators.

In the face of such pressure, the response was limited accommodation. It was to formulate a law that made it possible to punish human rights violators, but with impunity on a wider scale, such as against an international tribunal. Even this step was taken to avoid changing internal power relations; a deliberate move to negate the possibility of the law becoming a wider form of public control.

This strategy plainly calculated the narrowing of power against the control of the law, because demands for legal means to control power were at that time substantial, as were demands for changes in the relationship between power and civil society. A basic tool for a country based on the authority of civil society is a legal system able to control power. Thus demands to end impunity become a fundamental threat to a regime that resists such control and accountability.

The next complex struggle is how to limit the behavior of actors behind the institutions that have been given the authority to challenge the taboo of power. The National Commission on Human Rights has been the main gateway for ensuring limitations on that power. Therefore the political process seeks to ensure that this body is filled by people who are still within the reach of those in power, while letting a number of those on the body still retain some space.

The rationality of the selection, or excuses in the face of criticism regarding the procedure and criteria for selecting members is not the issue. The political decision lies in the hands of a few members of the elite, who know precisely their distance from their traditional constituents, such as their supporters in political parties or the wider public. The end result of this process is the rejection of ending impunity, by ensuring that the behavior of the commission remains within the corridor agreed to under the table.

Hopes for justice, the development of respect for humanity or peaceful means in life -- such things are far from the above agenda. Humanity is still a long way from our reality. We are still in the dark past, which has a great deal of control over our interests, our views and even over the way we live.

The psychologist Ervin Staub mentioned a society with a "deep culture" -- a set of values as a result of beliefs and historical conditions. Such a culture can hide uncertainty, differences and fears. The essence of our deep culture is the New Order and the practice of anti-humanity.