What is the meaning of `freedom of the press'?

The government revoked the publishing licenses of three weekly magazines on June 21. Political scientist Amir Santoso has attributed this to the confusion surrounding the term "press freedom", the inherent criticism-shy Indonesian culture and political immaturity.

JAKARTA (JP): On June 9 I wrote an article in this column, warning that the government might again restrict the freedoms it had already granted.

I believe in the correctness of the assumption made by the late Dr. Alfian some years ago that the government was probably applying a "rubber band" policy in granting freedom to the public at large.

According to this theory the government will allow the public enough freedom so long as this does not upset the security and order, and obviously as long as it does not disturb the government's own interests.

However, if that freedom should prove to endanger the government the corridor of liberty could again be reduced. As it has turned out Alfian's assessment, as well as my own conviction, have been confirmed.

This constriction of freedom occurs because dissimilarities in interpretation exist between the government and sections in society, including the press, with regard to the question of what the term freedom implies.

The government defines freedom of opinion as to exist within the bounds of the common responsibility to preserve security as well as political, social and economic stability. The one to delineate those boundaries is of course the government.

Similarly, the one to determine whether a view will or has upset security and stability is the government which possesses the authoritative power to do so.

It is this authoritative power that is a constant source of conflict with groups who maintain their own interpretation of the term freedom.

Those groups reject the denotation of freedom as defined by the government as it restrains their political interests, which they often identify as "the people's interests".

The problem is whether the political interests of those groups can indeed be regarded as representative of those of society as a whole.

Criticism

This may present a problem because not all members of society may share the same interests. This is also the government's conviction -- that is, that whatever is reported and analyzed by the mass media does not represent the views of society as a whole, but is somehow connected with the interests of those groups represented by the media concerned.

The measures that have been taken by the government against a number of publications is not unrelated to this conviction.

In any country the meaning of the term freedom cannot be isolated from the prevailing political culture and the degree of the maturity of that society's political disposition.

It is this complication that often invites criticism from abroad.

Culturally, in Indonesia the government's position has always traditionally been strong and government officials are as yet unable to accept open criticism. Government officials feel humiliated and undermined in their authority whenever they are publicly criticized.

This kind of attitude is inherent in almost all Indonesians, even those who regard themselves as true democrats and have enjoyed a Western education.

Just as the custom of accepting differences of opinion openly has not developed, neither has the ability to restrain oneself when following debates. It frequently happens that a person who gets involved in a debate finds it difficult to terminate the issue or forget the confrontation.

This is what I mean by a still unfledged maturity in our political disposition. For this reason, in Third World countries, a difference in opinion often builds up into a latent conflict which could endanger the country. The ability to criticize should also be complemented by an ability to compromise for the good of the nation and the country.

This traditional culture and the political immaturity pose a dilemma in our efforts to further the concept of freedom in Indonesia.

Some members of our younger generation and intellectuals are often impatient and tend to forget those two factors as they press their demands for instant democracy. Their efforts and their struggle for more freedom will always fail as long as those two factors prevail among the majority of Indonesians.

Moreover, their efforts will get no support from the masses because the main problem on hand for them is neither freedom nor democracy. The main problem for many Indonesians is how to eradicate their poverty and economic injustice. Freedom and democracy are just not included on their agendas, at least up to now.

The writer is a lecturer in political science at the University of Indonesia.