In Death Call, Anas Doth Protest Too Much

------
In Death Call, Anas Doth Protest Too Much
Yohanes Sulaiman & Phillip Turnbull | March 15, 2012

Anas Urbaningrum’s statement on Twitter expressing his willingness to be executed by firing squad if it is proved he took even a single rupiah connected to a scandal related to the Southeast Asian Games and Hambalang stadium graft cases is to be welcomed. Finally someone in the government has expressed the view that corruption is a crime of such a serious nature that it ranks alongside terrorism, drug trafficking and murder as a means of undermining social cohesion and the dignity of the nation, all of which invite the death penalty under the law.

Given the ridiculously low prison sentences handed out to corrupters, mitigated further by remissions and perks, the public has long felt these sentences hardly fit the crime. Nor do they serve as deterrents.

Furthermore, the judges who hand them down could reasonably be seen as either frightened of those found guilty and fearful of what they might do in retribution once released or suspected to be complicit in deals favorable towards the accused.

Anas has dramatically drawn a line in the sand in the investigation of corruption and the punishment given. Although he stands by his repeated claims of innocence, he now says should it be found otherwise (namely that he has perjured himself, lied to the public or stolen from the public purse), he requests that he be executed.

Anas is known to be a man who publicly states elevated principles calling for reform and integrity in politics. He belongs to the Democratic Party, which came to power on the promise of fighting and eradicating corruption. In a speech given on May 16, 2010, when he was deputy chairman of political and regional affairs for the Democratic Party, Anas said: “Money politics is the main challenge to democratic culture and erodes organizational culture. Even money politics will mislead us to a negative pragmatism in its starkest form. Negating meritocracy, money politics will put an end to the spirit of high achievement.”

Quoting President Yudhoyono approvingly, Anas said that “money politics constituted a serious challenge to democracy as it would affect the attitude and behavior of a leader at the expense of public interests. Money politics produces artificial democracy while betraying public trust and democratic conscience.”

Having stressed his opposition to money politics, he then went on to promote his agenda of putting meritocracy as the main pillar of democracy, arguing that meritocracy is critical in building the culture of democracy as it would produce competent leaders who are forged by experience, rooted in the society, and accepted by the public.

For Anas, “meritocracy” means that a person achieves a political position based on merit: ability, intelligence and expertise rather than on what he identified as the “strong spirit of sub-nationalism,” which not only included “narrow regionalism, religious fanaticism, or a strong identity of a group of interests, but rather it is the tendency to give prominence to the identity and interests of smaller entities at the expense of the nation’s identity and interests.”

Anas stated that the presence of self-interest in politics provides only disincentives for aspiring politicians to manifest their capabilities or merit, “when appreciation in an organization is given to non-meritocratic aspects like money and ascribed status.”

A few days later, in the second congress of the Democratic Party in Bandung in May 2010, Anas won the chairmanship during a bitterly contested two-ballot election in which he beat his rivals Andi Mallarangeng and Marzuki Alie. Having beaten Andi, whom many had suspected of receiving the blessing of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, in the first ballot, Anas announced, prior to the second ballot, that if elected he would appoint Edhie Baskoro Yudhoyono as his deputy. He won the second round, announcing that he won through a democratic election, presumably based on his merits.

Since that speech and conference, the Democratic Party’s former treasurer, Muhammad Nazaruddin, has testified in court that Anas profited from the construction of Southeast Asian Games structures in Palembang and Hambalang and that Anas used this money to secure votes from party members at the election in Bandung. If this proves to be the case, and Anas strenuously denies the accusations, it would put his pre-election speech about meritocracy in the shade.

Now he will soon be summoned by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and be given the opportunity, before law, to clarify and resolve the issue. He has already indicated his intention to take the matter seriously, even to the point of giving up his life if there is any truth in the allegations.

Yet, there is a hitch, notably the problems with legal precedents. Indonesian law does not extend the death sentence to the heinous crime of corruption, and the government often does a horrible job in ensuring that the rules are grounded with strong legal basis.

For instance, last November, facing public uproar on the lenient sentences given to convicted corrupters, the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights declared a moratorium on giving remissions (in the form of sentence reductions) to the corruptors.

Last week, however, having been challenged by three convicted corrupters and after intervention by former Minister of Justice and Human Rights Yusril Ihza Mahendra, the moratorium was declared in breach of the law on community rehabilitation. Apparently, having unveiled the moratorium with gongs and whistles, nobody made sure it had a legal basis.

Indonesian politics is grounded in a culture of grand statements, assurances and promises that are often conveniently ignored when it’s time to deliver on them.

No rational person would take Anas’s vow seriously. Nor in a civilized society would anyone wish to see the death penalty imposed on anyone for any crime, for that matter. Surely any rational person would understand his melodramatic language as hyperbole, as Anas’s claim to complete innocence.

Nevertheless, Anas has miscalculated in his appeal for public support. The use of intemperate language is something he now has the embarrassment of explaining, one way or the other.

Perhaps Anas, the man of merit, should take a leaf out of Napoleon’s book. “If you wish to be successful in this world, promise everything, deliver nothing,” the French leader said.

Napoleon also said: “The best way to keep one’s word is not to give it.”

The emperor, who overstepped himself, had his merits too. Let’s hope Anas maintains his in the eyes of the public and fares better.