This nation is learning – the tough way – the hard lessons of democracy. Each new challenge brings forth a new response that either regresses or propels this nascent democracy forward.

One of the most important lessons is the dangers of complacency. That the inherent values that make a true democracy work need continuous cultivation and activism. We are beginning to understand that no matter how benevolent our leaders, it is the innate nature of government to strive to expand its control and assume total domination of the levers of influence. Even if the ultimate result flies in the face of the very principles these leaders initially fought for.

Sometimes a sense of righteousness compels so-called "democratic leaders" to commit the sins of their oppressive predecessors.

Hence, one of the primary components of a democracy is the existence of a system of checks and balances involving the parliament, judiciary, electoral system and the media.

Not surprisingly, the corruption of the legislature, emasculation of the judiciary, manipulation of the electoral system and the cowering of press were all hallmarks of the New Order's Machiavellian nature.

In 1984, the Ministry of Information issued a regulation that would be the bane of the Indonesian press for the next 14 years.

The regulation placed a dark cloud of anxiety over the freedom of expression as the regulation gave the government the absolute right to summarily revoke the publishing licenses of media outlets, which would effectively shut offending publications down. Five years later, similar rules were applied to private TV stations.

It took the fall of the New Order regime and a long overdue wave of political reform to ensure that freedom of expression began to gain respect once again in this country. A month after the resignation of President Soeharto in May 1998, the Ministry of Information regulation was revoked and replaced a year later by a new Press Law that relieved media outlets of the need to seek publishing permits from the government.

In 2002, Law No. 32 was passed removing the government's authority to issue and revoke broadcasting licenses by transferring this power to a new independent body called the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI).

Commission members must not be members of political parties or the government, and are selected by the House of Representatives to serve three-year terms.

In spite of these "milestones", there is ample proof that freedom of expression and freedom of the press remain more in the way of slogans rather than actual convictions.

The criminalization of the press during the Tempo court saga and the conviction of protesters for "slandering" the President are some recent examples of this reality.

The signing by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of four regulations on broadcasting (Government Regulations No. 49-52/2005) last month is another blatant affront to the basic right of expression over the airwaves.

Without going into the details, the regulations – particularly Government Regulation No. 50/2005 – demotes the role of the KPI to that of an administrative body, while the power to censure and shut down broadcasters is given to the government. All of which is in violation of the 2002 Broadcasting Law.

The extent of the government's intrusion is such that even changes in internal rules or appointments to the executive boards of broadcasters must first be reported to the government (the Minister of Communications and Information), before being approved by the company's shareholders.

There is also a clear intent to limit the information received by the public as the regulation forbids the scheduled relay of foreign news programs.

Unfortunately, these tactics and methods are, sadly, all too familiar. Control of the print media and airwaves is always the first pillar of democracy to come under attack.

Like the air we breath, freedom of expression and thought are inalienable God-given rights that no human being has a right to summarily abrogate.

Only those who sup with the devil – tyrants and despots – would say otherwise.

We applaud the members of the House who have criticized these misconceived regulations. We roundly condemn the dismissive manner in which Minister of Communications and Information Sofyan Djalil brushed off these criticisms by suggesting that those who object could still challenge the regulations in the Supreme Court.

We – all people who believe in freedom of expression – will certainly act on Sofyan's suggestion. And maybe at the same time consider the need for the replacement of a minister who could so blindly defend such blatantly retrograde regulations.

At a time when we thought freedom of expression was finally becoming safely anchored in our nation, we suddenly realize that everything is still up in the air.

We can never afford to be so complacent again.