|
The decision by the Constitutional Court last week to scrap two undemocratic clauses in Indonesia's Criminal Code should indeed be celebrated. Using the two clauses, articles 154 and 155, the state could send anyone to jail for what it considered defamation against the government. The two articles banned any act -- writing, speeches, statements -- that were subjectively considered by the state as expressing hostility toward the government.
The decision is clearly a follow-up to the decision by the Constitutional Court in December last year that revoked articles 134, 136 and 137 of the Criminal Code. These articles effectively banned people from insulting the president and the vice president. As the language used in the articles was so vague, it did not distinguish between legitimate criticism and unwarranted insults. Therefore, the articles were often used to silence government critics, before and after reformasi.
The decisions by the Constitutional Court should be praised as a breakthrough in the country's democratic consolidation. They serve three important purposes.
First, the decisions free Indonesia from bad practices inherited from the colonial past. The articles were written by the Dutch colonial government to prevent Indonesian nationalists from criticizing and undermining colonial rulers. As an independent and sovereign nation, which has embraced democracy as the only game in town, Indonesia should be ashamed to prevent freedom of expression by using colonial-era laws.
Second, they strengthen the nature of government, and its leaders, as an institution that functions as the people's servant and is answerable to the people. Government and its leaders can no longer claim to be the master of the people. It should now govern rather than rule.
Within the context of governance, the people have every right to criticize and oppose the government if it does not perform properly. The people even have the right to condemn the government if it takes policies that bring suffering to the people.
Third, the invocation of these undemocratic clauses in the past was often meant to show the government -- from the president down to the bureaucrats -- as a group of aristocrats. It saw itself as being above the people. Now, they are no different from the rest of us ordinary citizens. They differ from us only in the pattern of the relationship: we are the masters, they are our servants.
However, the repeal of these clauses from Indonesia's legal and political vocabulary should not be interpreted as the dawn of unlimited freedom of speech. Within any polity, there are other sources of values that should govern and regulate political conduct. Morality and ethics should continue to provide necessary guidance on how one conducts his or her political behavior.
It is clearly inappropriate to curse a president or government official by using obscene languages. For example, calling someone "a pig" is clearly out of bounds.
However, describing government decisions and policies as "stupid" is clearly legitimate. In other words, a decent citizen -- and the government for that matter -- should always distinguish between personal insults and criticism of policies and behavior.
Similarly, the revocation of the defamation articles should not be interpreted as an invitation to promote personal slander (fitnah). Any accusation against any government official -- and of course against anybody -- should be based on reasonable evidence. More importantly, insulting the sanctity of religion should not be regarded as part of freedom of speech. Nor should anyone make a mockery of ethnic identity.
To prevent irresponsible freedom of speech, we -- as a nation -- should develop and practice a set of political ethics. We certainly have many moral codes that stipulate good behavior. For one, criticism can obviously be delivered in a polite way without unnecessarily hurting feelings. A member of parliament, for example, does not need to call the president or a minister "a stupid cow" to get his or her attention.
Any civilized nation and culture -- East or West -- has for centuries followed moral codes in every sphere of life, private and public. Within any democratic society, political ethics are mostly observed. It is time that we, as Indonesians, begin to demonstrate that we are no different from others in this regard. If we can base our political behavior on morality and ethics, our democracy will soon become a mature democracy.
The writer is deputy executive director of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
|
