Transparency or security?

Bimo Nugroho, Director, Institute of Free Flow of Information Studies (ISAI), bimo@isai.or.id

One major cause of the widespread corruption, collusion and nepotism (KKN) and human rights abuses in Indonesia is society's lack of control over the state. It is vital that civil society be empowered vis-a-vis the state, so that it can access information about, and participate in, bureaucratic processes and the management of public resources.

There is a need today for regulation that ensures the institutionalization of transparency, free and open information and the principles of public participation. It is urgent that an act be established that guarantees and regulates the public's right to obtain information about the government, and that which requires public institutions to provide such information.

The act referred to is the Freedom of Information Act, the draft bill of which is being deliberated at the House of Representatives, and the formulation of which, among others, involved the Coalition for the Freedom for Information.

Non-governmental organizations and local partners of universities have held several discussions about public institutions, the performance of which have been kept secret and have been tainted by KKN. These parties have begun to voice the importance of drafting a Regional Transparency Act at the local level, such as in Gorontalo in northern Sulawesi.

It is these local partners that keep supplying information on cases happening at the regional level. President Megawati Soekarnoputri, moreover, has issued a statement conducive to the deliberation of the freedom of information bill, although the statement has yet to be followed up.

However, the Bali blast of Oct. 12 has caused inclinations in the opposite direction: President Megawati, without any hesitation, signed the antiterrrorism bill.

Encouraged by the earlier momentum raised by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, politicians and military generals, dominated by loyalists of former president Soeharto, proposed the controversial draft on state intelligence. The draft allows the detention of any people suspected of harming national security, without due legal process.

Meanwhile, the military faction, which still wants to be fully engaged in the political arena, is not satisfied with the antiterrorism regulation in lieu of law. The House of Representatives is also deliberating the state secrecy bill, which is unnecessary, since the freedom of information bill already contains articles on information that should not be made known to the public if it threatens the national interest.

In addition, the Indonesian Military (TNI) has also proposed the Indonesian Military bill, which has given rise to a polemic mainly on Article 19, which states that TNI can act without the President's permission within 24 hours for the sake of national security.

If we could choose between government openness or national security, I would certainly favor the former. In a transitional country such as Indonesia, real national security will be achieved by creating an open government. Openness guaranteed by a Freedom of Information Act would instill responsibility among bureaucrats and promote public participation to protect national security.

On the contrary, "national security" enforced through a militaristic approach would only create false security, one which is supported by fear and hatred, given the past atrocities associated with the military.

One precious lesson that needs to be learned is that police investigations into the bombings in Jakarta and Bali have brought up strong suspicions that the acts were done by hardline activists identifying themselves with Islam. If this is true, then this would be one product of the decades of political repression of Islam carried out by the government.

Militaristic solutions in the name of national security have proven ineffective.

Therefore, members of society, such as intellectuals and activists, are pressing for a legal guarantee of government openness, which would provide a sound legal basis to obtain public information, to access information freely and to ask public officers to be accountable in cases involving public interests.

The act is particularly crucial, given the next general elections scheduled for April 5, 2004. As in a soccer game, on this date, the ball is in the penalty area and the player is ready to make a goal; but, there are so many players in front of the goal. Hopefully, the new players are better than the old.

However, with the looming threat of money politics, the election would only produce self-serving, inadequate representatives since, in a country as poor as Indonesia, it is only the corruptors that have what it takes -- in this case the money -- to win legislative seats.

If this happens, the struggle for realizing an open government will go back to zero.

The article is an abstract of a paper to be presented at the Symposium on National Security and Open Government on May 5 in Washington D.C.