Constitutional crisis?<\/p>\n
The Second Amendment to the 1945 Constitution, now being
\ndiscussed at the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), is
\nactually a series of alterations to Indonesia's basic law. The
\nproposed amendment contains as many as 29 items, which if
\napproved, will expand the 1945 Constitution from the present 37
\narticles to no less than 76. In contrast, the First Amendment,
\npassed in October, contained 13 changes, but left the number of
\narticles essentially intact.<\/p>\n
The reform era has broken down the floodgates for the country
\nto amend the 1945 Constitution, but not to replace it. This is a
\ndocument which was enshrined by Indonesia's two successive
\ndictators who turned it into their most powerful tool to sustain
\ntheir power for as long as they did. Sukarno and Soeharto never
\nhesitated in invoking the Constitution to muzzle, jail or even
\nmurder their political opponents who held different
\ninterpretations of the constitution to their own.<\/p>\n
The reform era brought about the realization that the 1945
\nConstitution, in its original form, contained many weaknesses and
\nmust therefore be amended. The basic law, in its original form,
\nleaves ample room for interpretation.<\/p>\n
Both Sukarno and Soeharto made sure that their interpretations
\nprevailed for as long as they remained president. They had
\nneither the incentive nor the interest to amend the 1945
\nConstitution. This went against the spirit the drafters
\nthemselves showed by making a provision to amend the document
\nthrough Article 37. They realized back in 1945, when Indonesia
\nhad only just proclaimed its independence, that a document
\nhastily put together was bound to have many weaknesses and
\nimperfections. They never intended the 1945 Constitution to
\nbecome a holy book the way many power-hungry politicians have
\ntreated it.<\/p>\n
The First Amendment, effected by the MPR in October, had a
\nclear objective: To clip the powers of the president and provide
\na more effective checks and balances mechanism between the
\nexecutive, legislative and judicial branches of government. It
\nwas essentially a move to prevent any serving president, once
\nelected, from becoming a dictator once again.<\/p>\n
The objective of the proposed Second Amendment is far less
\nclear and appears to have been dictated by the narrow self-
\ninterests of the major political parties. The proposal, expected
\nto be endorsed by the MPR during its current annual session, has
\nbeen prepared and debated by a small circle in the MPR, without
\ngoing through a single public hearing. While the proposed changes
\nwould further clip the powers of the president, it would also
\ngive the legislative branch even more power.<\/p>\n
While empowering the legislative branch vis-a-vis the
\nexecutive branch would further minimize chances for a return of
\ndictatorship, giving the legislature more power than it deserves
\ncould also plunge the nation into a constitutional crisis.<\/p>\n
We are already seeing some disturbing signs of this today in
\nwhich the legislature, because of its excessive power, can hold
\nthe government hostage. While the House of Representatives does
\nnot have the power to impeach the president, it has the power to
\nfrustrate the government. This is exactly where the nation finds
\nitself today as the executive and legislative branches are
\nconstantly at each other's throats. The Second Amendment will
\nonly exacerbate the problem, and unless something drastic happens
\nbefore then, Indonesia will likely be condemned to this hostage-
\ntaking situation until the next election in 2004.<\/p>\n
The 1945 Constitution, even after undergoing the First
\nAmendment, is still so far from being perfect that few people
\ncould argue against making further changes. But the piecemeal
\napproach to the amendment, and the strong vested interests that
\naccompanied the drafting and the debate, call for a complete
\nreview on how the nation should approach the issue. For a
\ndocument that affects the lives of more than 210 million people,
\nthe process of constitutional amendment is too precious to be
\nleft entirely in the hands of people whose interests are dictated
\nby the politics of today.<\/p>\n
Instead of endorsing the Second Amendment to the Constitution,
\nthe MPR would do a great service to the nation if it appoints a
\nnew committee of experts that will look at the entire issue, to
\noverhaul the constitution or even draft a new one if necessary,
\nwhich is more in tune with the needs of today. The team should be
\nfree from vested political interests and conduct as many public
\nhearings as it could in coming up with its proposal.<\/p>\n
The team who put together the 1945 Constitution under very
\ndifficult circumstances and conditions 55 years ago shared a
\nvision for the new republic. They also possessed statesmanship
\nqualities that overcame their own narrow political interests. If
\nonly today's political leaders could possess that same spirit and
\nstatesmanship, then there would be no reason why they could not
\ncome up with an even better basic law than the 1945 Constitution.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/constitutional-crisis-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}