A Death in Jakarta: Police Violence and the Crisis of Accountability in Indonesia
The recent death of Affan, a Jakarta resident, underscores a deeply troubling pattern of police violence and a systemic lack of accountability in Indonesia. This incident, coupled with the tragic Kanjuruhan stadium disaster, highlights a critical juncture for Indonesian democracy – a choice between bolstering police power and prioritizing the rights of it’s citizens. A proposed revision to the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) threatens to exacerbate the problem, cementing police control at the outset of every investigation and perhaps transforming Indonesia into a police state.
The current system, as embodied in KUHAP, grants disproportionate power to the police, placing them above prosecutors and the courts. This structure effectively allows police to act as judge and jury, undermining the fundamental principles of due process and leaving citizens vulnerable to abuse. This isn’t a uniquely indonesian issue. Experiences in Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina demonstrate how police forces, strengthened under authoritarian regimes, often carry abusive practices into democratic eras. In these nations, political reluctance to challenge powerful police forces hindered reform efforts until sustained public pressure forced action. Indonesia faces a similar impasse, with leaders offering apologies and promises of investigation, but consistently avoiding substantive reform.
Urgent and complete reform is essential. KUHAP must be revised to ensure prosecutors lead investigations from the beginning, and that judges swiftly review arrests and coercive measures.Immediate access to legal aid for all citizens is paramount. A fundamental shift in police culture is also needed, moving away from a militaristic approach to one of civilian service. This requires a renewed focus on integrity and empathy in recruitment, coupled with training that prioritizes human rights, negotiation skills, and safe crowd control techniques. Crucially, every death resulting from police action must trigger an self-reliant inquiry, with commanders held accountable and leaders resigning when their units demonstrate failures.
The issue extends beyond procedural changes. As criminologist Richard Quinney argued in The Social Reality of Crime (1970), law often serves the interests of the powerful, rather than the peopel. In Indonesia, this translates to a need to address the political forces that underpin policing. Without tackling this underlying power dynamic, the police risk remaining defenders of the regime, rather than protectors of society.
The cycle of violence and impunity continues. Despite Affan’s death and the Kanjuruhan tragedy – which revealed a clear failure of police to protect citizens – meaningful reform has not materialized. Activists advocating for change have even faced arrest, demonstrating a system more concerned with self-preservation than justice. Indonesia’s claim to be a state governed by the rule of law rings hollow when its legal framework prioritizes police authority over the rights of its citizens.
The President and lawmakers now face a critical decision: to protect existing police power or to enact reforms that safeguard the people. The deaths of Affan and the victims of Kanjuruhan, alongside the suppression of civil society activists, serve as stark reminders that law must serve citizens, not rulers. Failure to act will inevitably lead to further loss of life. However, decisive action offers the opportunity to build a police institution that respects rights, supports democracy, and allows Indonesia to truly become a state governed by the rule of law.
