T

he legislation process in the House of Representatives has always sparked controversy among society.

The public is now facing another polemic concerning the social conflict-management bill, which is currently being deliberated by a special committee and will be tabled in a House plenary session scheduled for today (April 10, 2012).

It is important to note that the formation of the bill is full of problems. That is why, even if the House pushes for the bill’s endorsement, its enforcement will potentially create new problems for society.

The bill, as a new measure to solve and settle social conflicts and violence, is not the right solution. The urgency of its formation as well as its substance is questionable.

The House’s intention in creating this bill must first of all be criticized for three main reasons: first, the formation process of this bill runs counter to the law regarding legislative procedures, which requires public participation and familiarization.

Despite the fact that public participation and familiarization are regulated and are one of the key principles of a democracy in order to guarantee public checks of state power, the practice was largely ignored in the discussions of the managing social conflict bill.

The deliberation lacked participation and familiarization, and the process tended to be manipulated.

Second, the urgency of the bill is neither clear nor well-argued; considering that in juridical, philosophical and sociological ways, this bill contradicts other laws and even the 1945 Constitution.

If passed, the bill will only undermine democracy and human rights. Citing the absence of law in handling conflicts as a justification for introducing the bill is inappropriate, due to the fact that there already exists a deal of regulations and legislation aimed at managing social-conflict institutions and state agencies, either to prevent or handle conflict and to implement post-conflict measures.

What is most needed is the serious implementation of the existing regulations and full support for state institutions and agencies in addressing social conflicts.

Third, in its substance, the bill contains problematic articles.

The wide definition of the term “social conflict”, which only invites various interpretations, and the authority to mobilize the Indonesian Military (TNI) that is invested in regional heads (governors, mayors and regents) in coping with regional and local conflict (Article 34, clauses 1 and 2) constitute a spirit of militarization.

Taken together, these factors create the potential of a misuse of power.

Civil society groups, such as workers, students and farmers, who voice their rights in a given region, could be classified as groups and therefore — according to the new bill — part of the conflict, meaning that the security forces could eliminate them or silence their fight for human rights.

This would obviously mark a setback for the hard-earned TNI reform.

Moreover, allowing regional heads to utilize the military is a basic violation of the 2004 TNI Law, which emphasizes that the authority to mobilize the military lies only with the President.

This provision is not only inconsistent with the agenda of security-sector reform, but is also dangerous for the reform program itself.

Another crucial issue is the authority given to regional heads to declare a state of emergency in the event of escalating conflict and to restrict a number of people’s rights.

This provision is not only against the spirit of the Constitution but also the 1959 Emergency Law, which stipulates that the authority to declare a state of emergency rests with the President.

The bill also seems to reflect how the state prefers to escape from its responsibility in relation to social conflict.

This can be seen from the provision in the bill that only emphasizes the use of social institutions to resolve conflicts, while ignoring existing national legislation and state agencies.

This provision is crucial because it can deny conflict victims’ access to justice and fulfillment of their rights. In the case of a conflict that leads to physical violence, this provision can lead to impunity.

Beyond these particular problems, there are still other articles that are problematic and that threaten democracy and human rights. Overall, this bill contains no less than 20 problematic articles.

With the various problems the bill is facing, it is obvious that it should not be intended for deliberation, let alone passed into law.

Endorsement of a problematic bill will only create new, serious problems. In the case of social conflicts, incorrect handling will only complicate the issues and reduce the chance of resolution, especially in areas vulnerable to conflict.

The important thing now is to make full use of the existing laws and design a regulation to govern TNI assistance to the police in times of emergency, as mandated by police, TNI and defense laws.

The bill of social-conflict management is a fallacious step and will only exacerbate the problems related to conflict.

Al Araf is program director of human rights watchdog Imparsial. Ghufron Mabruri is research coordinator at Imparsial