Jokowi’s
stance on death penalty ignores unfairness
Tobias Basuki ; A
researcher with the department of politics and international relations at the
Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta, and was selected as
a Munich Young Leader in 2014
|
JAKARTA
POST, 02 Februari 2015
The death penalty, and particularly the executions of drug
traffickers by the
government of President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, have
recently generated two vastly differing reactions.
The government’s policy has been widely criticized
internationally but has the near-unanimous support of the Indonesian public
and politicians.
Regrettably, the only visible segment of the Indonesian
public strongly opposed to the death penalty are the human rights activists.
In the sights for the next round of executions are two
Australians, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, leaders of the Bali Nine drug
ring.
The stern and swift executions tell something of
Jokowi’spPresidency and his leadership. It perhaps came as a shock to the
international community, which had euphoric expectations of Jokowi when he
won the presidency.
Many distant observers had unrealistic expectations that
Jokowi as a “new” politician would strive for all the “good” things: clean
government, effective bureaucracy, human rights and so on.
President Jokowi is indeed untainted by human rights
violations, and seems to genuinely care for the welfare of his people.
However, he is a pragmatic politician and bureaucrat, not
the idealist with visionary grand concepts that some have made him out to be.
As we have seen in the first three months of his
presidency, in terms of policy and actions within his control, he lived up to
his “packaging”, including the expected tug-of-war against the string-pulling
of the old guard.
Disregarding the current mess caused by the oligarchs
within his coalition on political appointments and the chief of police
debacle, Jokowi has proven himself to be an assertive leader true to his
words and intentions.
He is not swayed by the whims of public opinion as his
predecessor was. Scrapping the fuel subsidy was an action the significance of
which has been somewhat overlooked.
The fact that it did not create a huge uproar, in spite of
its perception as a Pandora’s Box by previous presidents, shows that Jokowi’s
leadership and political capital are greater than any other president since
the beginning of reformasi.
That said, his rejection of clemency for death-row inmates
and today’s line-up of executions is not uncharacteristic of his leadership.
Many of his policies and actions in these past three
months, excluding the “big-mother” drama alluding to the influence of his
patron, speak of a leader who is not easily pressured by either domestic
public opinion or international pressure.
Jokowi has shown that to some extent he has tunnel vision,
concrete and measurable goals that fit his rather narrowly defined goals and
vision.
He saw the need to reallocate money to support his
infrastructure build-up and health and security protection programs.
Hence, he was prepared to risk a tidal wave of public
uproar.
The same thing can be said of his leadership of Indonesia
vis-a-vis other countries and the international community. Jokowi is not a
hyper-nationalist leader who would ferment nationalism against other
countries to garner public support or show himself as a “man of the people”.
But nor will he cave in to international pressure if, in
his calculation, it is not beneficial for his measurable goals to do so. He
is not a friend to a million strangers like his predecessor, as clear from
the recent executions of foreigners and sinking of illegal fishing ships.
The saving of any of the lives in the second execution
roll-call, in particular the lives of the much-publicized two Australians, is
now a forlorn hope.
The fact that the first batch of executions included
foreign citizens, exempting just the two Australians would be perceived as a
double standard and as peculiar subservience to Australia.
In light of rows between the two nations over issues
including Australia’s obstinacy on boat people and the lack of apology for
the wire-tapping incident, it is particularly tricky for the Australian
government to lobby for the lives of
Chan and Sukumaran.
It is lamentable that the Indonesian government, backed by
overwhelming public opinion, looks likely to continue with the executions.
It is particularly sad to see that of the convicts in the
next batch, Martin Anderson from Ghana, waiting to be executed for possession
of a mere 50 grams of heroin.
It seems probably that President Jokowi’s stubborn stance
on executions, in spite of the international outcry and the constitutional
provision for the right to life, is down to the advice he is getting.
He is likely being supplied with data and statistics on
the drug problem plaguing Indonesian society. It is thus only logical in his
mind to go ahead with the executions.
Advocates against the death penalty will need to be able
to connect their arguments to concrete and measurable goals within Jokowi’s programs.
They will also need to be able to show a clearer picture
how the death penalty, as well as being prone to error, is also very unfair
and can create a mess of the Indonesian justice system.
One clear contrast is the execution of Anderson with the
perfunctory sentences of between three and six months in prison for the
killers of three Ahmadi villagers in Cikeusik, Banten, in 2011 — an
outrageous disparity.
The conclusion: abolish the death penalty to allow time to
rethink and review the fairness of the sentences.
Foreign countries understandably need to lobby for the
lives of their citizens, but this will prove futile if it means Jokowi having
to show preferential treatment to certain countries, which he will probably
not do.
Foreign diplomats will need to help human rights activists
frame the issue in the larger context and articulate how an end to the death
penalty is in Indonesia’s interests. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar