Challenges and opportunities for the House<\/p>\n
Mochtar Buchori, Jakarta<\/p>\n
The current internal conflict within the House of
\nRepresentatives has prompted many people to express concerns and
\nworry about our future as a nation. These concerns do not come
\nonly from people outside the House but from current and former
\nlegislators as well.<\/p>\n
Most of these voices express their strong disapproval
\nregarding the current conduct of House members. There are some
\nvoices, however, that along with the criticism also express hope
\nfor an eventual improvement in the House, both institutionally
\nand individually on the part of the legislators.<\/p>\n
M. Akil Mochtar -- a current member of the House -- said in an
\ninterview that \"...legislators must improve (their performance)
\nso that they can produce quality legislation.\" He also charged
\nhis colleagues in the House with not being \"politically mature\".
\nHowever, he said the present difficulties within the House should
\nbe looked upon as a process through which members could acquire
\npolitical maturity -- a trial by fire, if you like.<\/p>\n
Another remark, which is fairly sharp, came from Yayan GH
\nMulyana of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He wrote that with
\nregards to foreign policy matters the House has shown a \"growing
\nself-confidence\" which unfortunately is not coupled with \"the
\nappropriate know-how and competence in the field of foreign
\npolicy.\" Its activism is also \"deficient in traditions and
\ncharacter\" -- something that I completely concur with.<\/p>\n
A broad and scathing criticism was leveled by Owen Podger, co-
\nauthor of Government for All People, a recent report for the
\nAsian Development Bank.<\/p>\n
In an article in The Jakarta Post on Oct. 30, he virtually
\naccused the old House of being incompetent in revising Law No.
\n22\/1999 on the regional government, which was considered by many
\nas deficient. In his opinion the new law that replaces it, Law
\nNo.32\/2004, is not any better than the one it is trying to
\nimprove. In his opinion, the new law has created as many new
\nproblems as it has solved old ones. The quality of the new law
\nis, in his opinion, as bad as that of the old law, i.e. lacking
\n\"clarity, consistency, and appropriateness.\"<\/p>\n
What these critics are saying seems to be that our
\nlegislators -- and our politicians in general -- have to bring
\nour political system to a higher level of quality. And to this
\nend they have to learn many things. And the essence of these
\n\"many things\" is, as I understand it, the qualities of
\nstatesmanship.<\/p>\n
The question now is how to persuade or prompt our legislators
\ntoward this act of learning. It can be safely assumed, I think,
\nthat most of our legislators will not voluntarily commit
\nthemselves to such an undertaking. And if somehow through public
\npressure they become willing to learn novel and new ideas and
\nconcepts, what exactly must they learn? I do not think it right
\nor wise to answer this question on the basis of personal opinion.
\nWhat is needed here is \"public guidance\" or \"public preferences\",
\nif you like.<\/p>\n
For the purpose of finding such an answer a small group of
\nformer members of the House met recently to discuss this issue.
\nThey were joined by an equally small group of non-politicians
\nconcerned with the present political situation. In the discussion
\nthat followed, three basic reasons were mentioned as the main
\ncause of the present political turmoil.<\/p>\n
These are: (1) lack of understanding concerning the gravity of
\nthe national situation created by the deadlock; (2)
\noverdependence of individual legislators on the leadership of
\ntheir respective factions in making political decisions; and (3)
\nlack of technical competence related to issues that arise within
\nthe designated field of each commission.<\/p>\n
The broad consensus that emerged in this discussion was that
\nbetter political interaction and cooperation will come only in
\nthe House if legislators are willing to develop three things --
\ntechnical competence in their respective fields, a working
\nknowlege of political ethics, and a commitment to morality. These
\nthree concepts are interrelated.<\/p>\n
This kind of technical competence will bring political
\ndeliberations on any matter to considerations about ethical
\nstandards, to conscious and deliberate considerations concerning
\nthe impact of any political decision on the public. This will
\nconstitute the beginning of political ethics within the House.
\nAnd if this is done consistently and continuously, it is
\nreasonable to expect that in the end political morality will
\nemerge within the House.<\/p>\n
Another issue discussed in the meeting was about improving the
\nquality of the personal assistants and advisors in the House. The
\ngeneral opinion among the participants was that programs for
\nimproving legislators' competence and that of personal assistants
\nshould go hand-in-hand. This is because good laws will come only
\nout of deliberations conducted by knowledgeable legislators
\nsupported by well-trained technical staff. One of the reasons why
\nlaws produced by the House in the past often failed to meet
\npublic expectations were that the deliberations conducted prior
\nto the passing of those laws were seldom based on exhaustively
\nresearched information. No legislator can carry out such
\nexhaustive research without the help of competent research
\nassistants.<\/p>\n
The House has tried to solve this problem in the past. In
\n2003, if I am not mistaken, every legislator was given the
\nopportunity to hire a personal assistant whose job was to assist
\nthe legislator in gathering information related to issues under
\ndeliberation. This experiment, however, failed to reach its
\nintended objective. The reason was that many legislators had
\nabused this privilege.<\/p>\n
Instead of hiring someone who was really capable, many
\nlegislators hired instead members of their family: A son or a
\ndaughter, or a son-in-law or daughter-in-law, a brother or
\nsister, or a good friend. Some personal assistants were hired
\nsimply for their good looks.<\/p>\n
Against this background, it is not surprising that many people
\nwonder whether our legislators are really interested in improving
\ntheir performance and their quality. It is not surprising either,
\nI think, that many people feel pessimistic about a seeing a
\nbetter-quality House in the near future.<\/p>\n
Let us hope for the best, but let us not lose our hope if
\nthings do not proceed to our liking.<\/p>\n
As Alexander Dubchek said, \"Hope dies last.\" A nation that
\ndoes not even have the power to hope is lost.<\/p>\n
The writer was a House member for the 1999-2004 period<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/challenges-and-opportunities-for-the-house-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }