Font size: 
One of the perpetrators, Pfc. Makmur, was arrested by the Palu municipal police and transferred to the Palu military police headquarters. Col. Husein Malik, commander of the Palu 132/Tadulako Subdistrict Military Command, or Korem, admitted that Makmur, one of his subordinates, was involved in the incident. He denied, however, that the attack was premeditated or motivated by the political interests of the army. The description provided by members of Papernas of the attackers -- they wore military boots, had short-cropped hair and were heavily built -- seems to confirm the presumption that the attackers were members of the regional military command.
Prior to this particular incident, there were a series of comparable violent events. On April 29, for instance, a meeting to establish a branch management board of Papernas in Central Java in Tanjung Anom, Grogol, Sukoharjo, was forcibly dispersed by a group of people. Similarly, when Papernas held a meeting at the Gajah Building in Tanjung Anom not long ago, members of the Islamic Defenders Front, or FPI, visited it. They asked that the event be canceled because they claimed that Papernas represented the defunct Communist Party of Indonesia, or Partai Komunis Indonesia.
Then again on March 28 a demonstration organized by Papernas was attacked with more than 15 buses destroyed and five people injured. Finally, on March 4, members of the Islamic Defenders Front attacked a conference organized by Papernas in East Java.
What is particularly disturbing about the future of democracy in Indonesia is the deliberate attempt by members of the police and army to either cover up these incidents, refrain from conducting the necessary investigations or, perhaps even worse, allowing some of their members to be involved in the attacks; for in all these confrontational episodes, available information indicates the presence of police officers.
Their presence is of concern because they refused to prevent the attacks or respond to them. Moreover, they failed to conduct the necessary investigations that would lead to the prosecution of the perpetrators. All of the attacks occurred despite the authorization Papernas obtained from the local authorities for their meetings or other activities. Furthermore, when approval was sought, Papernas informed the authorities of the possibility of attacks on them by various organized groups. Such warnings produced no tangible results, however, other than the presence of the police who ostensibly refrained from taking any action even on occasions when a crime clearly took place.
Members of the international community are beginning to wonder about the conspicuous refusal of Indonesia's law enforcement authorities to deal with these attacks on freedom of association, of opinion and the formation of a political party, all of which are guaranteed in the Constitution and by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Indonesia is a party. If this violence had only occurred once, it could be dismissed as coincidental; but when inaction on the part of the authorities persists, one is tempted to draw the conclusion that law enforcement authorities are either openly supporting the attacks or deliberately declining to prosecute those responsible. Nevertheless, they all have the same effect, namely, condoning the denial of people's basic rights that are necessary for a democracy to function.
Democracy cannot grow until, and unless, the institutions that guarantee freedom of speech, opinion and association, etc., are allowed to operate independently. Moreover, a healthy democracy requires that when such freedoms are violated legal mechanisms exist to provide remedies. Unfortunately, the mechanisms for remedies in Indonesia apparently are hindered from fulfilling their responsibilities due to a host of factors: for example, the prevailing culture of impunity, a police force that lacks independence, absence of a tradition and ethos of impartial and effective police investigations and inadequate supervision by the attorney general's office. All of these deficiencies add up to stifle any emergence of democratic movements in the country.
What appears unusual is that the House of Representatives, the primary institution that not only passes legislation to guarantee people's rights but also monitors the government's ministries and departments, has not met the expectations of the country's citizens. Despite the frustration of ordinary people, these organized attacks orchestrated by interested parties -- violence that can seriously undermine the foundations of democracy -- have not been questioned and debated in Parliament. This deafening silence is hard to understand, although one can surmise the reasons. One persuasive conclusion is that the legacy of the New Order regime of the Suharto era continues to cloak every move in Parliament and stifle the transfer of power to ordinary Indonesians who might want to be freed from the army and its ancillary organ, the police.
What is needed are civil society organizations that are ever vigilant and that ceaselessly advocate reform of the police, the attorney general's office and the judiciary. These three institutions can safeguard Indonesians' rights and provide redress when violations occur. These institutions, however, must be respectful of the principles and standards of human rights without which no common ground can be identified, a basis for common action in protecting the rights of all as well as democracy in the country.
--
(Philip Setunga is a staff member of the Asian Human Rights Commission in Hong Kong responsible for the organization's research on Indonesia. He has a doctorate in sociology.)
