The year of living pragmatically without humanity

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.