C

ongratulations to Pak Arief Hidayat, who is slated to replace Mahfud MD, the outgoing Constitutional Court chief justice. The law professor from Diponegoro University in Semarang, Central Java, gained 42 out of 54 votes from lawmakers on Monday.

Naturally the news has attracted attention because of the statements he made during his “fit-and-proper” test, which may have influenced the votes. Among others he was quoted as saying that “Indonesia should implement human rights that are compatible with the local context, instead of unconditionally implementing so-called ‘universal values’.”

Such words often sound sweet to politicians and to anyone with a nationalistic streak. The problem is that it would be a setback and a betrayal to what Indonesia has achieved, not to mention a potential violation of the Constitution. Espousing “local” or “regional” human rights as opposed to universal ones is a direct reminder of Soeharto’s regime and his like-minded fellow authoritarian leaders of ASEAN, who campaigned for “Asian values”. For decades, it was easy for such leaders to trample on citizens’ human rights in the name of the “collective good”, which was supposed to be part of those Asian values, to silence dissent and so maintain power. Those Asian citizens clearly have other views as to their rights, as they have boldly expressed in all manner of blogs, artistic endeavors and massive demonstrations.

Which of the human rights should be changed to fit the local context, as Arief suggests? The second amendment to the Constitution in 2000 elaborated various human rights to be protected by the state; a praised move even before the establishment of the Constitutional Court itself in 2003. Surely Arief is not ignorant of this fact or of the state’s ratification of core international conventions on human rights?

If justice Arief was just trying to state what lawmakers wanted to hear, he did a pretty good job. However justices should not be expressing their views for their own personal interests or gain; their statements are taken to reflect their individual inclinations, which may largely contribute to future rulings in the court — rulings that would, one by one, lead us toward becoming a better nation with solid legal references. That a future chief justice is bent on seeking “local” adaptations to universal human rights is disturbing indeed.

Yet Arief’s statements also reflect an attitude shared by many in the elite class, who have been forced to abandon their comfort zones of peace and quiet since reformasi. If workers, for instance, could just refrain from protesting, then perhaps all leaders could oversee humming factories despite workers being paid a fraction of the minimum wage.

Constitutional Court justices are regarded as being above the political din — including the often discouraging discourse in a rapidly changing nation where “good old values”, conservative interpretations of tradition and religion — are seen as antidotes to the unexpected excesses of democracy. When marginalized groups were emboldened to speak out — including women and former political prisoners and survivors of the 1960s communist purge — it raised eyebrows and a steady backlash.

Despite his high-profile political statements, Mahfud MD inherited numerous verdicts as the Constitutional Court chief that upheld justice and human rights of Indonesian citizens. We hope that our nine honorable justices remain guardians of Indonesia’s democracy rather than following the forces that continue to resist efforts to empower people against abuse.