TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
How to prevent the rise of a police state
Change Size
Protect and serve: The National Police’s Mobile Brigade (Brimob) performs during its 73rd anniversary at the National Monument in Jakarta on July 10. Unconstitutional surveillance may risk turning the nation into a police state. (JP/Seto Wardhana)
T
he ratification of the 1945 Constitution on Aug. 18, 1945, marked the birth of Indonesia as a constitutional state. This fundamental principle of Indonesia’s government was the antithesis of Dutch colonialism, which was based on the concept of a police state.
Since its beginning, Indonesia has strongly rejected the idea of a police state. According to the Constitution, the state is based on law and not on arbitrary power, and the government is run based on a constitutional system that renounces absolutism.
Ironically, after such an exhausting democratic process in the 2019 elections, symptoms indicating the emergence of a police state have become apparent. While many had hoped President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo would lead the country toward further consolidation of democratic power during his second term, compromises made to accommodate political interests have prevented him from doing much.
The symptoms of a police state were well described by Ary Hermawan in his article in this newspaper, “Beware of green menace: Radicalism, new political bogeyman” (Nov. 28). The article highlighted how the state was now focusing on expanding its power rather than preventing radicalism democratically.
The Joint Ministerial Decree (SKB) issued recently to curb radicalism in the civil service has raised considerable controversy. Many question whether the decree is constitutional and whether it is in line with the legal hierarchical system. Examining the concept of a police state may yield some answers to these questions.
Essentially, a police state restricts civilians’ freedoms with the purported goal of achieving public order, national security and prosperity. Such restrictions require two important instruments, namely a legal system — law enforcement officers or bureaucracy — and to some extent, an extra-constitutional instrument.
According to Brian Champan who wrote Police State in 1970, the notion of a “state” is the first crucial requisite for a police state. Therefore, the state’s interests become priority, and achieving prosperity, according to its definition, must transcend the interests of the people.
