Discourse on Truth and Reconciliation Commission Law and Cultural Reconciliation
Reconciliation is considered to be the best way for Indonesia to move forward without being haunted by past events. Reconciliation is not a political issue, but honesty to see past mistakes.
The discourse on the deliberation of the Draft Law on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission or the TRC Bill was brought up again. The government issued Presidential Decree No. 17/2022 concerning the formation of a team for the Non-judicial Settlement of Past Serious Human Rights Violations. The team has an office term until 31 December 2022.
Efforts to resolve serious human rights cases in the past have actually been made since the 1998 reform movement through political reconciliation, the National Human Rights Commission, international courts, as well as structural reconciliation.
Several efforts were made to achieve this structural reconciliation, but these efforts further strengthened the conflict in society between those who were pro and contra. The hope of forgiving one another was deadlocked.
Failed structural reconciliation
During the reform era, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Bill began to be discussed. Former tapol (political detainees) and napol (political prisoners) of the New Order encouraged the government at that time to implement national reconciliation, and then a National Reconciliation Team was formed. Cases of human rights violations, if not resolved, will hinder development, because they are recorded in the minds and history of the Indonesian people.
The reconciliation process will not satisfy all parties. However, with this process, all parties can be honest and make peace with the past so that it can heal people's wounds a little. It would be even better if the government or the party considered responsible could provide compensation (Kompas, 1998). However, these efforts have not yet been successfully implemented.
During the administration of Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur), efforts were made to reconcile. Gus Dur discussed revoking the MPRS/XXV/1966 Decree as well as offering an open apology to former political prisoners in 1965.
Also read:
> Culture, the Path to Reconciliation
The discourse received a strong reaction from some people, so Gus Dur apologized to former political prisoners on behalf of himself, not on behalf of the government. However, one of the former political prisoners in 1965, Pramoedya Ananta Toer, rejected the apology on his personal behalf. Pramoedya wanted Gus Dur to apologize on behalf of the government and the state.
During the administration of Megawati Soekarnoputri, there was renewed pressure from former female political prisoners of 1965 to revoke MPRS Decree No. XXV/MPRS/1966 and provide rehabilitation to their good name. The revocation is seen by them as the first step to realizing national reconciliation because the MPRS Decree is what causes them to be constantly under suspicion by the wider community. The problem that remains with the Megawati administration is that the TRC Law, which has been drafted since the time of BJ Habibie, has yet to find clarity.
Meanwhile, during the time of former president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the TRC Law had been ratified, but several activists and former political prisoners of 1965 rejected several articles that were considered to be impartial to the victim, resulting in the repeal of the TRC Law through a judicial review at the Constitutional Court (MK). The cessation of structural reconciliation prompted former 1965 political prisoners to make other efforts to obtain rehabilitation and compensation. They then subpoenaed five presidents and carried out a class action.
‘Class action’: Seeking justice
The lack of response to the summons submitted to the five presidents, namely Soeharto, BJ Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid, Megawati and Yudhoyono, prompted former political prisoners of 1965 to look for other ways to seek justice. Those from Manado; Surakarta and Blora, Central Java; Yogyakarta; Jakarta; Purwakarta, West Java; and Banyuwangi, Blitar, Surabaya and Jember, East Java, came to Puncak, Bogor, West Java, to discuss the lawsuit.
They then filed a class action lawsuit. Jakarta Legal Aid Institute (LBH Jakarta) helps to oversee the class action process. Prior to the Reform era, LBH Jakarta had received several reports from political prisoners or prisoners of the G30S incident.
Since 2002, LBH Jakarta has begun to collect data on several reports related to the incident. The peak of LBH Jakarta's advocacy against political prisoners/napol who complained occurred in 2004. In several legal team meetings at that time, it was concluded that the lawsuits filed one by one per person would take a long time, so it was decided that the lawsuit was filed in the form of a collective agreement. A possible step is to file a class action lawsuit or class action lawsuit to the district court.
LBH Jakarta identified what the former 1965 political prisoners were asking for. Most of them wanted restoration of their good name and compensation for being sent to jail without trial; also, for losing jobs and for being sacked because they were considered having affiliation to PKI (not clean). Due to the large number, it was finally decided to appoint representatives to file the lawsuit. The parties who sued were not only political prisoners/napol, but also their descendants.
Also read:
Several figures who were active in filing the class action lawsuit were Tjasman Setyo Prawiro, Koesalah Soebagio Toer, Pramoedya Ananta Toer, Nani Nurani Affandi, Utati Koesalah Soebagio Toer and Mudjiati.
There is no definite data regarding the total number of victims of the PKI stigmatization. Tempo magazine reported that around 3 million to 4 million people were victims. The reference is used by LBH to determine the number of former political prisoners/napol and their descendants. After taking into account their families, the figure amounts to 20 million victims, consisting of those directly affected and not directly affected, namely their families.
The former political prisoners believed in delegating authority to LBH because they saw the track record of LBH Jakarta in handling other structural cases.
This has boosted the confidence of former political prisoners that LBH Jakarta can help restore their rights. LBH Jakarta, as the party requested for assistance in conducting advocacy, also conducted research on events, the amount of loss, who represented them and how to calculate losses.
The calculation of losses uses the assumption of gold-price increase. LBH Jakarta also investigates the expiration of a case. Expiration occurs when the victim of a case did not file any lawsuits.
The case of stigmatization of the G30S incident is not considered expired because several victims have filed lawsuits and protests, and this case is related to the rehabilitation of good names. LBH Jakarta followed up by holding intense focus group discussions with former 1965 political prisoners directly or indirectly to prepare materials for the lawsuit.
They then filed a class action lawsuit. The class action urged the government to fulfill their demands. These demands include, among others, that the government rehabilitate the good name and remove stigmatization; provide compensation to civil servants, Armed Forces (ABRI) and State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN) employees who were labelled G30S political prisoners who never received pensions and were dishonourably dismissed by the state; as well as rehabilitation as citizens.
In addition, they also demand the repeal of all regulations that have been discriminatory, such as the ET (former political detainees) sign on the ID card. They also want the revocation of MPRS Decree No. XXV of 1966. The lawsuit was registered and accepted by the clerk of the Central Jakarta State Court, with case number 238/SK/LBH/III/2005.
The victims were accompanied by a legal representative from LBH Jakarta. However, the class action lawsuit was also rejected by the State High Court because it was deemed inappropriate. The lawsuit should have been filed with the State Administrative Court.
Between memory and forgetting
The burden of history has not been forgotten in people's lives until now. The history of citizens, nations and countries is often filled with unpleasant, bitter and dark historical events. Bitter journeys can become “historical burdens” (Azyumardi Azra: Kompas, 2022).
Every 30 September, we are reminded of the sad and dark history of the Indonesian people. For former political prisoners of the 30 September Movement, 1965, (G30S) there should be no more problems when they return and live mingling in society.
They have followed the government's policy of providing them with supplies to be able to live side-by-side with the community.
However, for the former political prisoners of 1965 and their families, the burden of history is still a problem. Various efforts were also made to realize structural reconciliation, although it was not easy. The former female political prisoners of 1965 then built a space as a forum for realizing cultural reconciliation through cultural expression.
Also read:
> Between Compensation and Truth Disclosure
> Clearing up Settlement of Gross Human Rights Violations
They present various performing arts as a medium for their communication so that they can be accepted by society through cultural reproduction. This method is used to interpret and offer a new narrative of their history. They hope, with this cultural reconciliation, it can be fully accepted by the community.
The reconciliation is based on the principle of mutual forgiveness and openness from all parties involved, without prejudice to legal liability.
Reconciliation is considered to be the best way for Indonesia to move forward without being haunted by past events. Legal experts suggest viewing reconciliation as a future political investment and not just reconciling groups that are in conflict. Reconciliation is not a political issue, but honesty to see past mistakes.
Adnan Buyung Nasution stated that the key is to forgive each other, but not to abort legal liability for those responsible. Therefore, cultural reconciliation, which has long been built in the community, also needs to be supported to release the burden of history between what the nation's children want to forget and to remember.
Amurwani Dwi Lestariningsih
Amurwani Dwi Lestariningsih, Doctoral Candidate in History Study Program at UI, Head of the Education and Training Center for Employees of the Ministry of Education and Technology, Researcher for Former Female Political Prisoners, 1965
This article was translated by Kurniawan Siswo.
