Two Years Of Widodo-Kalla Presidency: Minimum Achievements, Delightfully Claiming The Achievement On Law Enforcement And Human Rights Unilaterally

Two Years Of Widodo-Kalla Presidency
Minimum Achievements, Delightfully Claiming The Achievement On Law Enforcement And Human Rights Unilaterally

 

The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS) congratulates the withstand of Joko Widodo and Jusuf Kalla presidency to lead amongst the various legal and human rights scandals that still not appropriately resolved yet until today. Generally, we would like to express that there is no particular important, significant achievement. The carelessness and inconcistency of the government did not significantly changing if we compare to the beginning period of this presidency started (October 20, 2014-October 20, 2015); which KontraS also already gave several strong critics and evaluations.

KontraS would like to recall that human rights is not only as a shallow topic. Human rights is really close to various state concrete agendas such as development, law, access to justice, access to information, public participation, gender equality, protection to the vulnerable groups and others. Thus, it is an impossibility if President Joko Widodo putting the human rights issues as the complementary issue only. The complementary issue is strengthen with a fact that President just recently collecting not more than 20 law and human rights experts in September 2016 to give inputs of the law and human rights institutional reform including the corruption issue within the insitution. The action is meaningless despite only just afternoon reception, ceremonial and sympathic to the public issues without concrete results and actions.

 

  • EVALUATING JOKO WIDODO REGIME

Within the evaluation, KontraS using at least 3 measures of human rights and law enforcement accountability that begin to popularly developed in the democratic countries in the world: (1) the capacity of state responsibility, (2) the capacity of state to give rationalization in every policy decision (answerability), (3) the capacity of state to use the correction mechanism within the law enforcement framework (enforceability). These three measures taken by the study developed extensively by the United Nations (UN) to measure the development achievements, law enforcement and human rights dimensions. KontraS hope that this evaluation could enrich the public understanding, giving choises of trends and evaluation perspectives while the state also did not want to lose to claim the achivements using the measures issued by World Justice Project.

1.1 Responsibility: Accountability for what?

As mentioned before, one of the significant weaknesses from the Widodo-Kalla presidency is the ability to interpret the accountability mechanism in the bureacracy management. This weakness then give an impact to the agenda of human rights and law enforcement. The president frequently claiming the achievement within the infrastructure development sectors including health and education. However, he seems fragile and does not have idea while facing the dynamics of security and human rights enforcement. This is conspicuous while president Joko Widodo started to raise the problematic figures such as Wiranto, Ryamizard Ryacudu, or the non-existence of his comments while the name of Hartomo raised as becoming the Chief of Strategic Intelligence Agency including his support to Budi Gunawan while he become the Chief of National Intelligence Agency. This condition even already started a long time ago with the involvement of AM Hendropriyono that already become a supporting figure of Joko Widodo’s victory in the 2014 presidential election campaign. Shortly, since the beginning president Joko Widodo did not objected to develop compromise with the perpetrators of human rights violations. Therefore, the accountability demarcation did not developed solidly. Then, he is now trapped amongst the elite and oligarch circle as the previous authoritative presidents in Indonesia.

In the context of law enforcement and human rights, president Joko Widodo taking a controversial steps. In the first year of his presidency, president Joko Widodo raising the reconciliation and non-judicial issue for the completion of past human rights violations cases. The political figures such as Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan which at that time authorized as the Coordinator Minister of Politics, Law and Security build an argumentation domination that the reconciliation is the only answer from every problems in the past human rights violations. The state institutions that particularly having a mandate for the human rights enforcement being diminished by the law compromises. For example, National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) that clearly supporting the agenda. This is obviously against the mandate of Komnas HAM as the investigation team for the gross human rights violations cases allegations to be brought to the more advance accountability process which is Law No. 26/2000 regarding Human Rights Court. The Attorney General become the party that also pioneered the reconciliation issue with lack of accountability also keep raising the argumentation that there is no evidence and witnesses to strenghten the issue for the gross human rights violations being processed in the mechanism on Law No. 26/2000.

In the recent law sector, there is an effort of weakening the state correction institutions such as the Commission of Corruption Eradication (KPK) of the fat accounts scandal which is related with the name of police Generals. There were no significant solutions taken by the president, despite letting the KPK become the state institution that losing its power for the anti-corruption issues in Indonesia. Moreover, the practice of violence in the military sectors that though to be touched since the access without boundaries that they could conduct in the political, development and illegal relations issues that already established by the Memorandum of Understanding between the National Military Forces (TNI) institution with the other state civil institutions such as in the sector of agriculture, family planning, request by the TNI Commander for the political rights of the TNI members to be revived, country defense and others. The conflict areas sich as Poso and Papua started to be approached by the development trend, however the security agenda still implemented. The state still delightful to give an amnesty without context in the potential conflict and violence areas, including the awarding of Din Minimi amnesty by the former Chief of National Intelligence Agency Sutiyoso.

Recently, president Joko Widodo issued the revitalization package of national law through the Coordinator Minister of Politics, Law and Security Wiranto. Instead of the package touching the structural problems of law enforcement and human rights, it is only raising the widening bizzareness of is it true that the dreams and imagination of president Joko Widodo to accelerate the development also could give a significant impacts in the law accountability and human rights issues in Indonesia?

To this point, then this is important to highlight the evaluation notes to several accountability knots that KontraS will develop to be 6 derivatives accountability agenda and responsibility that should become the public and government attention.

First, accountability for every efforts and results expected by the state.

KontraS could catch a message that President Joko Widodo would simplified the various law and human rights issues through the policy packages that he recognized existed progressively and compehensively. However, that tent to be pointed is that President Joko Widodo asking the people to not comply in the consitution logics and the state responsibility regulated in the Indonesian rule of law, with a convenient violating law language.

This situation could be seen from several controversial legal policies such as putting forward the death penalty for deterrence effect of drug offences in Indonesia. Followed by the negligence to never checking the clemency letter applications that thereafter trying to be closed by stating that for every death penalty clemency for the drug offences will not be given. There is an impression by the president himself in promoting discriminative values in law that akreadt guarantee by the constitution and other rule of law. President Joko Widodo akso never giving a correction space towards Attorney General HM. Prasetyo that clearly conduct various wrongful law procedures in the third batch of execution. President also neglects the public allegation towards the law procedure disadvanages against the 18 death-row inmates that already been executed.

In this era of presidency the trend of torture and other cruel, inhuman treatment could not be apart. In 2016 itself, there are 108 cases of torture that actually occurred in the law enforcement offices. Torture and other cruel, inhuman treatment even supported by the Law on Anti-Terrorism Bill plan with strengthening the policies that strengthening the violence regime. See until the case of Siyono terminated. In the more extreme situation, torture also stealthy adopted by the non-state actores as appeared in the cases of violence in the development sectors such as Indra Pelani case (Jambi) and Salim Kancil (Jombang) or the struggle of Kendeng mountains Mothers against the cement factory corporation. The farmers that attempted to defend their motherland should die or injured by the name of capital and power.

Second, accountability for human rights thoroughly.

We could not acquainted to hear while President Joko Widodo raising rethoric, double standards and tend to simplified the cases of law violations and injustice that appeared in the issue of human rights. This could be seen from various statements by President Joko Widodo that in Indonesia there are no discrimination practices against the minority groups. The other statements that he mentioned while he supported the completion of Munir Said Thalib murder case. Although, his step become uncertain and ambiguous while it is known that the document of investigation archive by the Munir Death Fact Finding Team disappeared in the office of State Secretariat. He could not answer the instruction by the Central Commission of Information to find the document and publishing the content of the document to the public. He instead chose Attorney General HM. Prasetyo that did not have any mandate to find the existence of the document. KontraS also would like to highlight the country alignment to resolve Munur case is an important examination to show that the state has a capability and wanted to be responsible in the justice and human rights agenda thoroughly in Indonesia.

Third, state accountability in every form of appoint obligation.

President Joko Widodo has a selective characteristic in the issues of human rights. It could be seen on while he try to providing the public service access as lightning fastly like the policy of National Health Insurance (KIS), National Education Insurance (KIP) and The Healthcare and Social Security Insurance (BPJS Kesehatan) – strarted to shown its characteristic. The double package of this policy that easily take the popularity from the public. As well as the agenda of exortion eradication that already success to pulling up the popularity of president Joko Widodo for the upcoming 2 years presidency. Nevertheless, he seems slow, failed to conduct coordination, tend to be reactive and insecure while seeing amounts of critics pointed to him such as (1) forest and land fires that affected to public deprivation for the haze volume, (2) artificial vaccines and artifical medicine, (3) past human rights violations, (4) narcotics and death penalty policy, (5) corruption, (6) anti-terrorism, (7) Papua issues. These seven points clearly have various deprivation impacts that not only affected by the victims, but also to the family.

Fourth, accountability to resolve inequality and discrimination.

President Joko Widodo also did not really giving many comments and supports in the issue of human rights protection while the minority groups – whether from the religious, belief groups, oe the sexual orientation that already been cornered by the ministries. The statement stated by the Minister of Research and Technology, former Minister of Telecomunication and Informatics until the Minister of Defence that really impassioned to be involved in the spreading of hate through the mass media, social media by the official statements. Similar matter also occurred while there was an extraordinary neglect by on the violence situation against several religious groups as occurred in Tolikara, Tanjung Balai and Singkil. In KontraS records, specifically throughout two years of this regime, it is already neglected 300 violence incidents od the fundamental freedoms expression that should be protecter by the 1945 Constitution, Human Rights Law and International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and other rule of law.

1.2 Answerablility: Does state already active taking responsibility?

If we look from the list of problems above, then it is important for us to take a glimpse of flashback of the active efforts by the state to show the meaning of ‘state is present’ and responsible on the agenda of law enforcement and human rights in Indonesia. Indeed, President Joko Widodo trying to establish a continuity of the government policies that already affirmed before. However, the continuity seems regressive and not giving many breakthrough. The agenda of ‘continuity’ instead raising a compromise sentiment. This could be sen by the initiative of National Symposium to respind the 1965-1966 Massacre. Moreover, the state also sponsored the existence in the competitor symposium which affirmed that the violence in the period of 1965-1966 is a prove of horizontal conflict and state should conduct a ‘firm action’ to terminate the conflict. The impact from the ambiguous correction step seen from the social segregation and identitiy that being disputed (re: the group that accused the other groups are a form of Indonesian Communism Party, the group that claim themselves as a genuine Unitary State of Republic Indonesia). Instead, now President Joko Widodo frequently hearing the ideas from Wiranto and the concept of colloqium to resolve the human rights violation in Indonesia. Colloqium, discussion, symposium or other various names could not be effective to resolve a chronic, cultural and corrupt, violence characteristic that should be only corrected by the system of effective insitutional arrangements that oblige to the transparent law scenario.

The weak correction space that could affected to the potention of violence received by not only to the victims and family of victims but also to the minority groups. We could see how the issue of sexual identity rejection (anti-LGBT) became very powerful everywhere in Indonesia. If its not the sexual identity issue, then the minority religious and belief groups will become the target of bully by the public or even the yellow media. Moreover, the limitation of Papuan people expression that occurred in the big cities also pointing a massive problem of the positive messages stated by President Joko Widodo to be interpret as the agenda of protection without discrimination in Indonesia.

1.3 Enforceability: Does the prevention and correction system works?

With the shabby correction system above, with a worst management in the legal system such as the establishment of police internal regulation for the hatespeech prohibition (which the success was unmeasurable), the establishment of intelligence supersivision in the Commission I House of Representatives (that the works also never been heard), the establishment of Castration Law (which not answeting the issue of child abuse in Indonesia), President event uniterally trying to get Papuan people attention with pressing down the amount of fuel without clearly understand the injustice and volence that occurred everyday in Papua; the statements of President Joko Widodo are very particularistic and delightfully hiding behind the common sense of sociological reality of the public with the comment character that slightly similar such as, “respect human rights in Indonesian version, respect the norms and social values in Indonesia” instead showing the incapability of a President to give new interpretation if democratic practices in Indonesia.

 

  • WHO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE?

President Joko Widodo having a duty to be responsible in every statements, decision and actions that he already committed throughout these two years of presidency. The trend of leadership keep defending the politics of image and selfie festival – the cycle of ceremony which shown that the President and his staffs seems to be working however they only want to get public attention (e.g: President Joko Widodo came to Merauke and plant time capsule without any meaning). He also did not success to connect his political agenda with the spirit of people welfare that should be strengthened. The obsession of the President Joko Widodo of the splendor development, infrastructure and state sovereignty seems to be last until 2019. Each year, he will be struggling to get public attention with instant and flash way. However, talking about law and human rights are our responsibility to keep demanding the promises by the government that protecting human rights is the peculiar characteristic of today’s government with the new regime of New Order Authoritarianism.

 

 

Jakarta, October 20. 2016

KontraS Workers,

 

Haris Azhar, MA

Executive Coordinator

 

See more: KontraS. 2015. Pemerintahan Jokowi Tidak Akuntabel dalam Hak Asasi Manusia. The source can be accessed at: http://kontras.org/home/index.php?module=pers&id=2177. Accessed at October 19, 2016