MPR Annual Session 2002: Some crucial issues<\/p>\n
J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Political Analyst, Jakarta<\/p>\n
From the outset, this year's Annual Session of the People's
\nConsultative Assembly (MPR) has been overshadowed by expectations
\nof a deadlock. The political parties had agreed that they would
\navoid such a deadlock -- but may be regarded as a deadlock is yet
\nto be clearly defined. A complete failure? A partial failure?
\nWhat issues should be the criteria?<\/p>\n
Such an expectation was strongly expressed by the Indonesian
\nMilitary (TNI) Chief Gen. Endriartono Sutarto on the eve of the
\nopening of the session when he said that the amendment process
\nhad deviated from its original purpose. Indeed, this kind of view
\nis not a monopoly of the TNI and the Police alone.<\/p>\n
At any rate, the General's statement could not but lead to a
\ncontroversy on whether he was in position to make such a
\nstatement, in effect dictating to the MPR, the supreme governing
\nbody of the country's political system based on the 1945
\nConstitution. Gen. Agus Wijoyo, a deputy at the MPR, has defended
\nthe TNI's political position on the ground of its representatives
\nin the TNI\/National Police faction in the MPR. The point is that
\nGen. Endriartono is not one of those representatives, and that he
\nmade that political statement outside the MPR forum.<\/p>\n
The next statement, however, is that the TNI and the National
\nPolice will support any decision made at the upcoming Annual
\nSession including the possibility of issuing a decree providing
\nfor the reinstatement of the 1945 Constitution if this was
\nconsidered the best choice for the country. Now what would a
\nreturn to the 1945 Constitution mean: The original text, or that
\nincluding amendments I, II, and III -- already agreed by the MPR?<\/p>\n
The next crucial issue is the direct presidential election. A
\ndirect election of the president and vice president in one
\nticket, given the general agreement by most factions in the MPR
\n-- should logically result in the MPR being stripped altogether
\nof its main functions: To elect the president and vice president,
\nto determine the outline of state policy, and to hear
\naccountability reports by the president at the end of his or her
\nterms.<\/p>\n
The process should be reversed. An institution will need to be
\nestablished because some function is to be performed, not a
\nfunction to be created for institution already established. Thus
\nthe idea of giving the MPR a function to elect the president and
\nvice president in the second round of a direct election of the
\npresident and vice president in one ticket, in the event that no
\ncandidate wins a majority of over 50 percent in the first round
\nof the direct election, is a sham -- a pretext to maintain the
\nexistence of the undemocratic MPR.<\/p>\n
The legislature should then consist of two separate chambers,
\nwhatever they each are to be called and however they are to be
\nelected. The two chambers can then have joint sessions, but not
\nforming a single institution consisting of the legislature (DPR)
\nand a body of the imaginary functional representatives. The DPR
\nis like the House of Representatives in the United States, and
\nthe other chamber is similar to the U.S. Senate.<\/p>\n
The MPR, the supreme governing body of the political system
\nunder the (unamended) 1945 Constitution, with unlimited powers,
\nis the most prominent evidence of the undemocratic nature of this
\nConstitution. It has served only to sustain a dictatorship, under
\nSukarno's guided democracy and the Pancasila democracy under
\nSoeharto's New Order. This is the opportunity to get rid of it.<\/p>\n
Reform is a change within and through the existing
\nconstitution; within and through the existing system. We can thus
\nuse the MPR for the benefit of the whole nation, rather than to
\nsustain some form of a dictatorship. So reform in that sense may
\nindeed end up with a completely new constitution.<\/p>\n
Moreover, all indications point to the transitional nature of
\nthe 1945 Constitution. Without repeating what these historical
\nand political indications are, one should not be blinded by
\nrhetoric, made-up logics and false arguments. References to the
\nfounding fathers are just a fallacy of authority in informal
\nlogics, with which many of our political elite do not seem to be
\nfamiliar, because few of them ever learn.<\/p>\n
Another crucial issue is the more than half-a century old
\ndemand for the inclusion of the sharia into the constitution,
\nthis time through amendment of article 29 rather than into the
\npreamble as before. This efforts of many Muslims by various means
\nfor long since before the proclamation of independence, if
\ngenuinely out of a religious conviction and dedication to the
\nwhole nation and to humanity, rather than out of political or
\npower interest, deserve respect and appreciation.<\/p>\n
However, if we are all to be committed to the idea of one
\nnation, then we should bear in mind these factors: In the light
\nof our diversity in so many things, we can only continue to
\nremain a united nation if we are bound by common universal human
\nvalues. We should be ready to engage in a never-ending process to
\nfind and to develop those common values. Failing in some, we have
\nto learn to understand and accept those differences.<\/p>\n
Secondly, the institution of the state is never established to
\nimplement any particular religious laws and teachings. The state
\nas a human institution is designed to promote general welfare
\n(including public order) based on justice for its citizens. If
\nthe state, through its laws and law enforcing agencies, should
\npunish, say, a thief, it would not be because he or she has
\nviolated a religious law or religious teaching (for the
\nChristians, for instance, a sin against one of the 10
\ncommandments "Thou shall not steal", but because he or she has
\ndisturbed public order by encroaching on someone else's rights.<\/p>\n
In the long term, it would not make an essential difference
\nwhether the MPR annual session this year would eventually agree
\nto amending article 29. If it does, it would be the beginning, or
\nperhaps to be more accurate, the continuation of the
\ndisintegration of this nation. If not, then we can expect the
\nnation to continue to be forever beset by social tension and
\nworse, social conflicts with all their dire consequences.<\/p>\n
Then we can forget about economic recovery, stability and
\nsecurity. For our nation-state will forever be rocked at its very
\nfoundation. Indeed, it would be a serious question of our
\nsurvival as a nation.<\/p>\n
What about the next MPR annual session 2003, in the light of
\nexpenses, its agenda, a lack of vision on the part of its members
\non where we are really going, their lack of understanding of what
\nreform or constitutional amendment is all about, and the lack of
\nunderstanding of the MPR's own functions? Should the MPR convene
\nagain? It is not even worth a serious answer, except, "You must
\nbe joking!"<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/mpr-annual-session-2002-some-crucial-issues-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}