Transparency or security?

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.