|
I attended the Human Rights Council’s
panel discussion on the commemoration of the Vienna Declaration and
Program of Action’s (VDPA) 20th anniversary in Geneva on Feb. 25. The UN
secretary-general participated through a video conference at the event
that was formally opened by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Navi Pillay.
The VDPA is
considered one of the most successful documents produced in human rights
history aside from the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. It was
adopted by consensus at the second World Conference on Human Rights in
Vienna in June 1993 and comprised a number of recommendations to states
and relevant stakeholders, including encouragement for states to
establish their own national human rights commissions.
After 20
years, according to the UN, there are more than 100 national human rights
commissions/institutions established worldwide, including in Indonesia
which formed the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) in
1993. The question remains however just how effective those rights
commissions are at promoting and protecting human rights.
Although its
role and credibility was initially doubted since it was established by
the Soeharto regime, during the course of its service Komnas HAM has
gradually gained people’s respect and trust particularly from victims of
rights abuses.
However,
after the fall of Soeharto in 1998 specific national human rights
institutions such as the national commission on women, children, etc,
emerged, eroding Komnas HAM’s role, legitimacy and even relevance as the
only quasi-state institution with a human rights promotion and protection
mandate.
Hence, the
ongoing rift within Komnas HAM has been much anticipated although quite
disappointing. In fact, criticisms of Komnas HAM have been mounting for,
among other reasons, its lack of focus.
Instead of
improving their performance in promoting and protecting human rights in
the country, the current members are busy with trivial issues such as the
rotating chairmanship and privileges.
This kind of
situation in fact could have been detected in the lack of aspirants
applying for Komnas HAM posts. As widely reported, only 19 people
registered with the selection committee more than a year after the
vacancies were announced. As the law requires the panel to propose at
least 30 candidates, committee chairman Jimly Asshiddiqie appealed to a
number of human rights activists to join the race.
Hence, here
are some thoughts to help the commission address its problems. First and
foremost the current rights commissioners should realize that Indonesia
today has changed a lot from the time of Soeharto’s regime. The
commissioners need to make themselves relevant in the current situation.
No doubt
people still need Komnas HAM, but it needs review and adjustment. The
commissioners should redefine their roles in relation to the government
and judicial institutions and in their relation to other human rights
groups since they now operate in a new setting and environment — a free
and democratic Indonesia.
Indeed, it
was disturbing when I attended a discussion held by Komnas HAM recently
focusing on its tasks and role. I was surprised when the commission’s
research staff presented a kind of chart depicting Indonesia’s transition
from autocracy to democracy but nothing in the chart said anything about
Komnas HAM’s role during and after the transformation process.
Surprisingly, the commissioners looked proud as if the chart was
something original and timely.
In fact what
they produced was nothing new and was even obsolete. It appears that it
has taken them 14 years since reformation to realize their position.
Consequently,
the current commissioners should forget the good old days of the
complaint-inspired approach during the Soeharto era to a program-oriented
approach. Theoretically and empirically, national human rights
commissions that devote their time to receiving complaints are rarely
sustainable.
It does not
mean they should not ignore complaints but rather the commissioners
should use a thematic approach to enable them to focus their resources on
areas of dire need.
In this
regard they should be able to relate complaints to the general policies
of their focus. More importantly they should not concentrate only on
civil and political rights but also economic, social and cultural rights.
In line with
this thought, the commission requires qualified staff to support
committed and independent commissioners. Up to now, the commissioners
have been supported by government officials and sponsored staff.
There should
be a mechanism to select only capable and independent staff.
While for the
commission line-up, a balanced composition of the membership based on
backgrounds is pressing. It is good for the commission to have members
who previously held government posts as it may help it deal with
government institutions.
Indeed,
Komnas HAM has a unique role in the protection of human rights since it
bridges the government and civil society. The commission does not
represent parties, which underlines its independence.
Last but not
least is the funding issue. With the flourishing number of national human
rights institutions it is rather problematic for Komnas HAM to ask for
its state budget allocation, let alone an increase, since the funds
should be distributed to those other human rights institutions.
All in all, I
believe Komnas HAM will remain relevant and able to perform effectively
as long as it can quickly redefine and adjust its roles to the changing
environment. Indeed, empirically national human rights bodies like Komnas
HAM can work effectively when they operate within a functioning
democratic environment.
Other than
that, I don’t think we need another World Conference on Human Rights to
solve the anomaly of Komnas HAM. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar