For the last two months, the Indonesian public has been
given another form of entertainment: A tug-of-war between commissioners of
the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM).
A view on this
was published by The Jakarta Post on Jan. 22 and it was written presumably
by the most senior of all newly elected commissioners. The perfect word to
describe the situation can be found in the Javanese language: dagelan (a laughable show).
For those who
are not familiar with the story, here goes.
Once upon a
time, 13 brave individuals were appointed as state officials responsible
for ensuring respect, protection, promotion and fulfillment of human rights
in Indonesia. Not an easy job, thus, not many people qualify for the
position.
Once selected,
the Magnificent 13 elected one chairperson and two deputy chairs among them
to lead the commission.
It turns out
that some, later on, were not happy with the decision and decided to take
matters into their own hands.
If this were an
action movie, you could imagine black clouds approaching from afar.
Under the
pretext of collective collegiality and equality of all commissioners, the
Magnificent 13 split into the Amusing Nine against the minority of four.
The Nine argued that because all commissioners were equal, they should all
be given the same opportunity to chair the commission.
Therefore, they
insisted that the chairmanship period should be one year (modified from 2.5
years as it stands). An argument that possibly can be accepted, with
tremendous effort of tolerance and ignoring any logical flaws, if their
term of office is 13 years instead of five years.
The second
argument is that 2.5 years cannot guarantee that Komnas HAM will be able to
perform well.
Allow me to
rebut that: Unfortunately for them, in a country such as Indonesia, with
its bureaucratic process and the need to reach consensus in almost every
aspect of life, a one-year period of the chairmanship will be even more troubling
since the national commission will have to invest more time to resolve
internal infighting rather than deliver.
This assumption
is not without merit. See how the staff of Komnas HAM recently conducted an
open protest on Feb. 8 by presenting a petition to the commissioners. They
realize how unproductive this will make the commission and the implications
of losing public trust on the institution.
The third
argument from the Nine is that collective collegiality is needed to share
the managerial burden of Komnas HAM. The truth is that, Komnas HAM is one
of the few state institutions trusted enough by the people to express their
aspirations and concerns regarding how they are being treated by the state.
This is something that should be upheld.
So long as the
state does not prioritize the rights of the people in each and every policy
and development strategy, there will always be those who feel
disenfranchised. Thus, there will always be more complaints and reports
submitted to Komnas HAM than it is able to deal with.
Managerial
burdens can be lessened if; one, an organization reduces its bureaucracy,
streamlines its decision-making process and has a proper division of labor.
Two, people inside the organization take their jobs seriously.
Last but not
least, there should be a more efficient and effective working system. A
very basic management lesson that, truth be told, does not equate
efficiency with a one-year rotation of the chairmanship.
All these
arguments seem to be based upon the assumption that the chairmanship only
plays a role to facilitate the work of Komnas HAM instead of a real
leadership role, which in fact is not the case. The leadership of Komnas
HAM is not just symbolic; it was elected to carry out responsibilities and
have the authority to collectively undertake the work of Komnas HAM.
Rotating the
leadership based on the aforementioned arguments, which is sadly going to
happen with the adoption of the new internal procedures (Tata Tertib), will
only undermine the role of the leadership structure and diminish the
effectiveness of Komnas HAM.
Moreover, the
arguments also blurred the differences between collegiality and
collectivity.
While the
interaction and relations among commissioners should be collegial in a
professional sense, the leadership itself has been entrusted with authority
and to exercise decisions that may be taken in consultation with the rest
of the commissioners.
These poor
arguments, of course, raise a question, what is it that they actually are
looking for? Fame, power, official car (oh, please!), political agenda or,
like a multiple choice exercise, all of the above?
Interesting to
see how some commissioners put on a condescending expression when
criticized by NGOs. Some even refute complaints by saying that certain NGOs
are trying to discredit Komnas HAM or the commissioners. While in fact,
civil society is trying to save Komnas HAM from dishonoring itself and to
ensure that Komnas HAM is still able to function properly as one of the
last bastions for human rights protection in Indonesia.
In a spirit of
mutual respect, civil society together with many former commissioners are
trying to provide Komnas HAM with a reminder of its conscience and its role
as a moral compass in this troubled nation.
So the question
remains, what’s in it for you dear commissioners? ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar