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

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.