Senin, 18 Februari 2013

Concern on Komnas HAM leadership


Concern on Komnas HAM leadership :
Because we care
Rully Sandra  Program Coordinator at the Human Rights Resource Center (HRRC)
JAKARTA POST, 15 Februari 2013


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