TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

Introduction:
BETWEEN THE PAST AND THE FUTURE

What is the best way to resolve cases of human rights violation? This one question seeks both answers and debate. In various forms, a number of countries have used Truth and Reconciliation Commissions to successfully disentangle the tangled threads of their pasts. So how about Indonesia?

The United States’ invasion of Afghanistan, causing the deaths of hundreds of civilians – including children, seems to have temporarily diverted our attention towards a number of acute national issues. The threat of disintegration in Aceh and Papua, and conflict in Maluku, had almost been forgotten. Even the MPR (People’s Consultative Assembly) in their  recent Annual Session preferred to ‘bicker’ amongst its members than discuss these crucial national issues.

But in fact these threats are very real. When community demands for justice are not handled seriously - particularly those related to gross violations of human rights, respective components of a nation will begin looking for their own solutions. This is the beginning of disintegration.

Solving these demands for justice is not easy work. The new government of Megawati, wishing to be built upon a basis of democracy, faces complicated challenges in attempting to meet community need for investigation into human rights violations committed under the former authoritarian regime of Suharto.

Similar difficulties have befallen governments of this type in other parts of the world. Often in the end, the transitional government will try to resolve serious human rights crimes by reconciling the inclinations towards either punishment or pardoning, or the granting of amnesty. It is not surprising then when their efforts are limited to providing ‘transitional justice’, which fails to completely satisfy anyone.

The legal approach is guaranteed to have difficulty succeeding. This is due to legal apparatus being largely a product of the past regime and insufficient, both administratively and substantively. Like it or not, the process of legal reform becomes a prerequisite to the integrity of law. This reform process, however, is not yet meant to produce results, and so demands to resolve human rights violations must be given priority, for the sake of the credible existence of the nation.

Due to the conditions described, a ‘temporary’ legal order is required, to function only as long as this period of political transition. Here, rigid legal principles are ‘softened’ as a logical consequence to the given objective conditions. Within this context, discourse on the formation of a special commission with the task of seeking truth and reconciliation becomes central.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) must be seen in the context of the issues described above. It is not wrong to say that the TRC is an experimental response to the situation of political transition.

Farid Esack, an important figure in national reconciliation in South Africa who became a teacher at the University of Western Cape, Afsel, and a number of other universities - including Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard – is of the unequivocal opinion that Indonesia is one of the world’s countries in need of a TRC. He explained his position some time ago during a trip to Jakarta, after meeting with political figures in Senayan and academic circles. “This country needs a Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” he stated categorically.

In Afsel, he explained, the TRC has been successful in uncovering a significant amount of truth. While Esack would not confirm whether the his country’s TRC had been truly successful in realising reconciliation, he added “To a certain extent this commission has indeed been very effective.”

***