Legislative drafting in Indonesia has become a far more challenging affair over the past ten years as lawmakers in the House of Representatives (DPR) have had to become responsive to the concerns of their constituents. Globalization has complicated policy-making further as law makers need to ensure national laws conform to the increasing integration of the world.
To respond to the demands of designing legislation capable of addressing both complex and technical issues, lawmakers need access to multiple sources of data and information, and to be able to draw upon both in-depth expertise and varied point of view.
Fortunately for the lawmakers, they are not left to their own devices to obtain the above but are assisted by the support service of the House of Representatives, and can also call upon technical experts, research institutions, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Benny YP Siahaan, in his opinion piece on Post-reform NGOs, printed in this paper on May 17, noted the growing involvement of NGOs in the parliamentary law-making process. However, he was inclined to focus on the complaint of critics, including supposedly huge funds and hidden agendas of NGOs, so casting assertion on their role and motives. He also mentioned that NGOs were seemingly more successful than legislators in both communicating with and through the media.
This article, however, rather than seeing NGOs as a threat, sees the involvement of civil society organizations in legislation as a positive contribution, founded upon the quintessential purpose of democracy: the need and function of public participation for democratic governance.
An analysis of the laws passed over the past years shows that NGOs participated in the discussion of a large number of laws. These laws include the Law on Foundations, passed in 2001 and amended in 2004, the Law on Income Tax, the Anti-Pornography Law, the Election Law, and the Freedom of Information Act - all passed in 2008. For each of these laws, numerous experts and NGOs were asked to give testimonies, as well as field visits being conducted.
On being elected, legislators are tasked with drawing-up legislation on a large number of issues, yet as legislators, they may have no requisite background in the issue to be discussed. Thus, not only do many legislators arrive in parliament with limited technical knowledge, but their chances of growing into experts on any particular field are limited by the high turnover of legislators. In both the 2004 and 2009 legislative elections, more than 60 percent of legislators were not re-elected, so severely limiting the ability of the parliament to build institutional knowledge and expertise amongst parliamentarians.
Furthermore, although relatively well-funded, the House lacks a research capacity commensurate with needs, as the existing research unit continues to be underdeveloped and understaffed. To overcome this deficiency, a good deal of the information and expertise needed for the lawmaking process, as well as budget reviews and oversight of government policies, comes from outside the parliament. NGOs are key to this, providing this critical function, as well as being channels for particular interests to enrich debates within the legislature.
As advocates of specific issues and with a variety of usually competing interests, the presence of NGOs contributes greatly to legislative discussions. They put on the table expert opinions and provide viewpoints from angles that would otherwise likely be overlooked. NGOs remind lawmakers of, for example, the concerns of minorities as well as highlight the diversity of majorities. They can caution against decisions being made too hastily, or conversely, call for swift action. Yet, at the end of the day, and after considering all relevant opinions, it is always the lawmakers who make the final decision.
The involvement of NGOs in the deliberation process might raise questions about intentions and motives. However, although organized citizens now use their right to participate, as final authority remains with the elected representatives, there is little reason to doubt harmful interests. Lawmaking is a political process whereby diverse interests are debated and laws are created, usually the result of compromise between these competing interests. In a democratic state like Indonesia, the public should be constantly encouraged to participate in the process, by communicating their concerns with their representatives.
Although public participation is now mandated by law, in reality, the space for such participation remains limited, consisting of public hearings before parliamentary committees. Furthermore, even for those following the work of parliament closely, parliamentary schedules remain opaque and draft laws or their revisions can remain difficult to access, making it very difficult for the public to know when they can provide their input.
Despite such challenges, both parliament and NGOs should embrace the new opportunities. However, NGOs must continue to improve the quality of their input, and parliament should be ready to manage and utilize NGO input to help draw up sound laws designed to address issues in a balanced and fair manner. A participatory and transparent environment will encourage this, and improve overall accountability in the lawmaking process.
Frank Feulner is a Research Fellow at the Asian Law Center, University of Washington School of Law. Eryanto Nugroho is a researcher at the Indonesian Centre for Law and Policy Studies, Jakarta.
