Waiting for justice for Munir's murderers

Patrick Guntensperger, Jakarta

It is perhaps appropriate that the verdict in the Munir murder case comes just as the year 2005 draws to a close. The fact that Garuda pilot Pollycarpus Budihari Priyanto' sentence of 14 years for the cold blooded and cowardly murder by poison of a highly respected human rights activist comes at this time gives us pause to reflect on how our expectations have changed over the last year.

Nobody who has followed the case, even cursorily, seriously believes that Pollycarpus acted alone. That the airline security officer, with ties to the State Intelligence Agency (BIN), was inspired to such an act by his having taken offense at the victim's criticisms of the state doesn't even pass the laugh test. Indeed, even Pollycarpus claims that he is a "scapegoat".

The judges, in their decision, stopped short of pointing to BIN as being directly involved in the murder but were clear that they were not satisfied that the matter has now been laid to rest. Police spokesman Brig. Gen. Paulus Purwoko has expressed the intention of the police not only to continue the investigation, but to widen its scope, to "see if others were also involved in Munir's death".

Meanwhile, despite former BIN chief Hendropriyono's repeated defiance of a summons by the team investigating the murder, current BIN chief Syamsir Siregar blames the police for their failure to find the masterminds behind the murder. After Hendropriyono's numerous refusals to cooperate with the investigation, citing reasons from a lack of politeness in the wording of the summonses to more pressing business elsewhere, Siregar has gone on record as saying, "We supported and facilitated them in this case, but the results have been fairly disappointing". Perhaps Siregar is demonstrating a hitherto well hidden ironic sense of humor.

A year ago there was a sense that such a high profile case, combined with the new President's commitment to eradicating corruption and other abuses of power, would tear the lid off an entrenched rot in the corridors of power. In this space, I wrote a piece that suggested that Munir's death might even be seen as a final sacrifice that would have a far-reaching impact on reform in this country. That was a time of optimism, a honeymoon period in which President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was seen as the great hope for rapid and long overdue changes to the status quo.

Then came a year that Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain might have described as our annum horribilus. The tsunami hit on Dec. 26. World oil prices skyrocketed. Bird flu became an issue. The Schappelle Corby soap opera caught the attention of the world. The Nias Island earthquake gave us a sense of deja vu. The terrorist threat continued to grow and peaked (thus far) this year in the second cluster of Bali suicide bombings. Inflation climbed to over 18 %. One crisis after another occupied the president's time.

But along with the crises came the gradual erosion of optimism. The hopes held for a radical change for the better in Indonesia did not go out with a bang, or even a whimper, but rather, withered by attrition. The sweeping clean-up of systemic corruption failed to materialize.

Certainly a number of high-profile bandits have been prosecuted and convicted, but to be realistic, they were pretty low-hanging fruit. There is a pervasive sense that the convictions were little more than a few bones thrown on a pro forma basis. The surface of the problem has barely been scratched, public sentiment goes, while the business of the systematic pilferage of the people's assets proceeds as usual.

Susilo, at first seen as a methodical consensus builder, has come to be seen as indecisive. His deliberative approach to addressing critical issues is perceived as wishy-washy; note his fundamentally correct, but insufficiently far reaching "mini cabinet reshuffle".

It might be reasonable to argue that expectations merely became more realistic. Perhaps one year into the first directly elected Indonesian president's term, we are as far along the road as we could reasonably have hoped. Indeed, Susilo has suggested that the first year has been one of consolidation, of setting the stage for the sweeping measures that true reform demands. As the new year approaches, Susilo still commands sufficient goodwill and carries enough credibility that when he tells us that next year, real progress will be made, people don't dismiss it as empty rhetoric.

That goodwill is not inexhaustible, however. If Susilo's credibility is to survive, if real change is to come, if Susilo is not to become a mere footnote to Indonesian history, it is time to live up the hope he inspired when he was given his overwhelming mandate. The time has come for Susilo to live up to our expectations and to fulfill our hopes. While we follow the sputtering Munir case, we will see if it fizzles and dies. If it does, so will the hopes of Indonesians for transparent, accountable and truly democratic governance.

The writer is a consultant with Van Zorge, Heffernan and Associates, a Jakarta-based political risk consultancy. The opinions expressed are his own. He may be reached at patrickg@vzh.co.id