A step forward and all homework after MPR session<\/p>\n
A better constitution, a bicameral system and the exit of the
\nmilitary and police from legislative politics are among the
\nresults of the recent Annual Session of the People's Consultative
\nAssembly (MPR). The Jakarta Post's Ati Nurbaiti talked to
\nconstitutional law lecturer Denny Indrayana from Gadjah Mada
\nUniversity in Yogyakarta on the results and the work ahead.<\/p>\n
Question: What are your impressions, in general, of the
\nresults of the Assembly's Annual Session?<\/p>\n
Answer: We must appreciate the progress; we have a better
\nconstitution than the 1945 Constitution. But the process of
\namending it has barely involved any public participation.
\nTherefore, the challenge will be the level of acceptance of the
\namended constitution. In the beginning of the constitutional
\namendment process in South Africa, for example, there were 2
\nmillion letters sent to the constitutional commission, or roughly
\n10 percent of their 24 million people.<\/p>\n
Before the MPR session started there were only 127 letters
\nfrom our population of over 200 million. Don't blame the people,
\nblame the political elites who could not attract public
\nattention.
\nLegislators have blamed the government for public ignorance,
\nmainly the office of the State Minister of Communications and
\nInformation, who they said should have properly publicized the
\nearlier amendments.<\/p>\n
It was the fault of the MPR, which was given the authority to
\nconduct the amendments, and public consultation should have been
\ninherent in that process.<\/p>\n
In South Africa first, the media was used, including radio
\nprograms with over 10 million listeners a week; there were 37
\ntelevision programs, they made use of the Internet and provided a
\nhotline in South Africa's 11 languages, and publications were
\nalso issued in Braille. The result was that 73 percent of the
\npopulation was well informed about their amendment process.<\/p>\n
Our legislators have said they would publicize the amendments
\nafter they were done -- but involving the public comes before
\nthat, not after. The Constitution does not belong to the MPR.
\nWhat about substance?<\/p>\n
The amendments still have problems regarding checks and
\nbalances. It's now \"legislative heavy\"; and the new bicameral
\nsystem is half-hearted because the regional legislative councils
\ndo not share the role of decision-making with the national
\nlegislature.<\/p>\n
Then the impeachment process in article 7 still gives the
\nauthority to the MPR to evaluate the decision of the (future)
\nConstitutional Court. So it turns out that the MPR still has such
\nauthority. Instead of emphasizing the rule of law we still have a
\nprocess prone to politicization; the MPR might take a different
\nview from the Constitutional Court.<\/p>\n
Further, in article 28 we still have the retroactive clause
\nbarring investigations into past human rights violations which
\nwill save the likes of Golkar people (from prosecution).<\/p>\n
This is a concrete example of politicking that affects the
\nsubstance of the constitution.<\/p>\n
Another crucial issue related to public participation is
\nclause 37 on the form of the state. Without public knowledge it
\nwas suddenly made into a non-amendable article. Regardless of
\nwhether we might change the form of the state this very crucial
\nclause cannot be made into a non-amendable article.<\/p>\n
In Australia, the issue (of changing the form of the state)
\nwas put to a referendum.
\nWhat are some problems in the homework after the MPR Session?<\/p>\n
So many clauses in the constitution cite further regulation
\nthrough laws, which leaves too much power in the hands of
\nlegislators. After criticizing the constitutional amendments all
\ndemocratic elements must focus on formulating the bills on
\nelections, political parties and the composition of the MPR.<\/p>\n
The Fourth Amendment was indeed passed but further public
\nparticipation will be blocked by limiting the work of the special
\ncommittee on the political laws to two months.<\/p>\n
We can expect extraordinary distortion in the laws; everything
\nthat has been worked on in the amendments could be changed again.<\/p>\n
Another problem is the urgency of a constitutional commission.
\nIts formation will still depend on the MPR. The MPR decree on the
\nestablishment of the commission says the MPR's Working Body will
\ndetermine whether such a commission will be established by 2003.
\nThat the commission is ruled by an MPR decree is very weak. The
\nnext Annual Session could make it void.
\nWhat about the military's exit from the representative bodies?<\/p>\n
This is indeed another thing to be appreciated. But the
\nmilitary now seems to have two faces: That of its Chief and that
\nof the faction which supported the establishment of a
\nconstitutional commission. This, perhaps, reflects two views in
\nthe TNI; one that wants to leave the MPR and another that
\ndoesn't. This might explain their eager, sudden support for a
\nconstitutional commission, which might give them a chance to re-
\nenter the representative bodies. Fears of such intentions led to
\nresistance of students against the setting up of the commission.
\nWhat should we anticipate in the nation's political life with so
\nmany things left undone ahead of the 2004 General Election?<\/p>\n
We must have good conflict management. We only have two years
\n-- minus the time to formulate the necessary bills. This is a
\ncrucial time for us before the elections of the president, the
\nmembers of the legislature and local legislatures because there
\nshould be more participation from the public than ever before.<\/p>\n
This could lead to rifts in society, and we will see how ready
\npeople are (for the new elections) because the political elite
\nwill be looking to manipulate people's emotions.<\/p>\n
Politicians might try to manipulate the emotions of eastern
\nIndonesians (who have often felt slighted by Jakarta) by
\npromoting someone like (Coordinating Minister for People's
\nWelfare) Jusuf Kalla, from Sulawesi, for president.<\/p>\n
Yet we must be ready, or we will have a further, extraordinary
\npolitical crises as this is about succession in government.<\/p>\n
Would you prefer all the voting to be done on the same day?<\/p>\n
Different suggestions have come up (from the Coalition for a
\nNew Constitution which Denny has joined). For instance, the
\nbenefit of having it all at once (voting for members of the
\nlegislature, local legislative councils, and presidential) would
\nbe that the political parties would only have one chance (to
\nmanipulate the people and\/or the mechanisms of the vote). If we
\nhave them at different times all the emotional upheaval would be
\nrepeated. If the elections are conducted separately, of course,
\neverything must be completed in 2004.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/a-step-forward-and-all-homework-after-mpr-session-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}