Lifetime Pensions in a Developing Nation: Indonesia’s Court Faces Accusations of Protecting the Elite -By Fransiscus Nanga Roka

Since millions of people are still living in much needing condition, the idea that former politicians can be granted lifelong pensions from taxes has aroused widespread debate in Indonesia. This month’s Constitutional Court challenge to the law governing financial rewards for ex-public figures goes deeper than one for a technical clause; it has brought broader elite worries about inequality, privilege and the future direction of Indonesian democracy out into the open. Critics claim that the affair is simply another stone in an emerging pattern; when political elites’ interests collide with social justice principles, then all too often the system bends to power instead of fair play.

The Indonesian constitution states very clearly that public funds should be used to benefit most for the people. In a developing country like Indonesia, this principle carries particular weight: the nation’s resources are meagre relative to demands on its public spending. What is needed is an economy that will create jobs and well paid ones at that, in a sustainable environmental manner. Infrastructure gaps, unequal access to healthcare, underfinanced education systems, and omnipresent informal work cry out for long-term investment.

From its origins back in the Cold War era there has always been more light that this controversy about whether politicians should be given pensions for life. Critics argue that the law which grants lucrative benefits to former legislators no longer corresponds with the structure of modern Indonesian democracy. The underlying reasons have changed direction significantly since constitutional reforms shifted the balance of power amongst state institutions; yet these privileges remain, backed by inertia and with defenses based upon arguments about convenience, tradition, and respect for public service.

Defenders of the pension system have held that once people retire, they all need some form of financial security.The risks of corruption and political dependence are pointed to in support of this view. Without long-term protection for holding public office, might not officials be tempted, supporters ask?However, in a society where the vast majority of citizens have no such protection, this logic becomes hard to accept. For farmers, factory hands, small traders and folks in informal work, old-age security is often uncertain or non existent. Between that privileged class which holds power and their constituents who have given them their positions for electing to live the rest of their lives on the public payroll there is little connection at all, While democratic ideals suggest one thing things as they are compel us to quite another area of remark.The fierce debate has put Indonesia’s Constitutional Court in an awkward position for a public institution. As the guardian of the Constitution, the Court is expected to adhere not only to text but also to fairness, proportionality, and equal treatment before the state in material terms. In cases involving financial rights for political actors, its judgments influence popular perceptions of whether legal system can hold power accountable or not from outside confines such as those at court.Accusations that This means no disguise for the political elite of her shield at all went as far. But this general annoyance at the way democratic politics has run of late is reflected in many countries around the world today. Voters wonder increasingly whether their own institutions those political colossi with which they feel little or no affiliation serve no longer as instruments to represent them publicly but have become ornate, self serving mausolea for people already on the inside. The pension debate in Indonesia certainly echoes arguments we have seen recently in Europe, Latin America and America. Again and again, fat benefit packages for elected representatives have sparked ire from a broader public. The general trend is predictable: as economic inequality spreads, there is less and less room among ordinary voters for political privilege.

Indonesian society is particularly sensitive to this issue because it flies in the face of declared constitutional ideals and actual social conditions. It claims to be a society in which social justice is paramount and the welfare of every citizen guaranteed. But a society that looks for security all life long for the political elite but does not adequately give basic protection to ordinary workers will begin to lose its identity. In a developing state, every penny of public money spent carries its own moral load. Spending on a massive scale that does not arouse disapproval in rich countries can be regarded as profligate when there remains just that little bit more to be done on some pressing need.

That is why the opposition to life-time pensions is not only a matter of money. It is a question of the very nature of democracy. A country in which certain officials can expect to receive permanent financial privileges naturally comes under suspicion as a system that rewards power rather than service. As impressions of this kind spread, confidence in the institutions weakens. That means the stability which those institutions are meant to safeguard also begins to decline.

The Constitutional Court of Indonesia now finds itself in the eye of this storm. It is neither the court’s job to assuage public anger, nor is it for political interests to escape their due scrutiny. The challenge is to interpret the constitution in such a way that both legal certainty and moral validity are preserved. If the result looks as though it favours the elite and offers nothing to the masses, damage will not be confined to a single piece of legislation or the decision. It will sow a mistrust which already runs deep in many democracies: systems work best for those who make rules.

After all, the question raised by the pension issue is really very simple and yet disconcerting. In a democratic society based upon equality, how long can a country say it is serving its citizens when the state guarantees lifelong comfort to politicians and leaves everyone else up in the air?

Fransiscus Nanga Roka

Faculty of Law University 17 August 1945 Surabaya Indonesia