Entry point to constitutional change<\/p>\n
J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Political Analyst, Jakarta<\/p>\n
A great number of issues are likely to be on the agenda of the
\nupcoming Annual Session of the People's Consultative Assembly
\n(MPR). Most probably short of efforts at a change of government,
\nbut for a better performance of the government in the light of
\nPresident Megawati Soekarnoputri's \"progress report\".<\/p>\n
Apart from a less fundamental question of the formation of the
\nregional representatives faction, there may be a more important
\nissue of better communication between members of the government
\nand the legislators, among members of the government itself,
\namong members of the Cabinet and the President, and between the
\nPresident and the legislators, particularly various political
\nfaction leaders in the interest of a better running of government
\nin the days ahead.<\/p>\n
In the interest of the nation over the long term, however, no
\nquestion seems to be more important than that of further
\nconstitutional amendments. Unfortunately, though never said
\nexplicitly, \"constitutional change\" is taboo in this country. The
\nmost people can tolerate is the term \"amendment\". It's amazing
\nhow Indonesians are so crazy about symbols. It's beyond reason,
\nbeyond comprehension.<\/p>\n
This has been part of the success of New Order indoctrination.
\nSo many people, including politicians and intellectuals, pay lip
\nservice with particular words and phrases, even if they do not
\nreally know what they mean, nor care what they mean. Perhaps they
\nfear, unconsciously, that failing to use them they may be
\nconsidered unnationalistic, unpatriotic, revolutionary, or worst
\nof all, \"un-Indonesian\". Shakespeare's words, \"What's in a name\"
\ndoes not strike a chord among Indonesians.<\/p>\n
Whatever amendments have been made so far to the 1945
\nConstitution have not really touched the fundamental defects of
\nthe Constitution: the establishment of an institution with
\nunlimited power (the MPR), the absence of the separation of
\npowers among the three branches of government, and the absence of
\nmechanism for judicial review.<\/p>\n
One issue already debated widely, however, has been the
\npossibility of the adoption of a system for a direct election of
\nthe president. Whatever their diverse motives, a direct
\npresidential election would make it possible for us to do away
\nwith the MPR. Those who agree to a direct election of the
\npresident while maintaining the continued existence of the MPR
\nsimply do not know what they are talking about.<\/p>\n
With a direct election of the president, we certainly will
\nhave no need for an institution to elect the president and vice
\npresident; to determine the State Policy Guidelines (GBHN); and
\nto which the president is to give his or her accountability
\nreports. Candidates for president and for vice president may or
\nmay not form one ticket in the election. That is a choice we can
\nmake.<\/p>\n
However, candidates for president would have to present their
\nown political platforms (to substitute the GBHN); and they would
\nhave to uphold the constitution -- not the \"1945\" Constitution --
\nrather than be accountable to any institution as the MPR, which
\nshall \"fully implement the sovereignty of the people\".<\/p>\n
To be sure, as a consequence, we may have to resort to a
\nbicameral system of representation, one representing the regions
\n(provinces), the other directly representing the people. In
\nconsequence, we may have to adopt a single-member constituency.
\nIt would take time to establish electoral constituencies, which
\nwould be necessary to be different from administrative districts.
\nHowever, all these amendments may not possibly be made
\nsimultaneously. Nevertheless, they may be put in an agenda over
\nsome period of time.<\/p>\n
It seems clear, however, that an amendment to the 1945
\nConstitution relating to a direct election of the president and
\nvice president may indeed be the right point of entry to
\nconstitutional change we need so badly. We may continue to call
\nthe new constitution the 1945 Constitution if we will, with the
\nunderstanding that it has been (drastically) amended, but without
\nfeeling that we have \"betrayed\" our founding fathers, or our
\nproclamation of independence; or that we have \"changed\" our
\nconstitution, if that should be sacrosanct.<\/p>\n
It is our own choice, whether we want to work toward modernity
\nor complacently engage ourselves in self-delusion and get
\nnowhere, and ultimately perish as a nation.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/entry-point-to-constitutional-change-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}