{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1187749,
        "msgid": "opposition-whats-in-a-name-1447893297",
        "date": "1995-09-19 00:00:00",
        "title": "'Opposition': What's in a name?",
        "author": null,
        "source": "JP",
        "tags": null,
        "topic": null,
        "summary": "'Opposition': What's in a name? The question of the desirability and constitutional legality of political opposition in Indonesia has surfaced once again. In the following article political observer J. Soedjati Djiwandono takes a look at the issue. JAKARTA (JP): The recent debate on whether there should be an opposition in the Indonesian political system still misses the real issue, although both the pro and con sides have a valid case.",
        "content": "<p>'Opposition': What's in a name?<\/p>\n<p>The question of the desirability and constitutional legality<br>\nof political opposition in Indonesia has surfaced once again. In<br>\nthe following article political observer J. Soedjati Djiwandono<br>\ntakes a look at the issue.<\/p>\n<p>JAKARTA (JP): The recent debate on whether there should be an<br>\nopposition in the Indonesian political system still misses the<br>\nreal issue, although both the pro and con sides have a valid<br>\ncase. The real issue is not about opposition as such, which may<br>\nbe understood in different ways.<\/p>\n<p>In terms of the parliamentary system, we do not have an<br>\nopposition. But opposition can still be found in a presidential<br>\nsystem such as in the United States, where the president and<br>\nmembers of Congress are elected separately, though directly, by<br>\nthe people. There, as opposed to an established institution as in<br>\nthe parliamentary system following the British model, the<br>\nopposition has different rights and responsibilities.<\/p>\n<p>The real point at issue in the present Indonesian political<br>\nsystem is the lack of control over the executive branch of the<br>\ngovernment. However defined, that is the essence of an<br>\nopposition. To say that opposition is contrary to the so-called<br>\nfamily principle does not make much sense, for it is no more than<br>\na myth. At best it is a vague idea.<\/p>\n<p>Ardent supporters of the present political status quo would<br>\nreadily argue that the 1945 Constitution does provide that the<br>\npowers of the President are \"not unlimited\", and that he shall<br>\n\"seriously listen to the views of the House of Representatives\".<br>\nBut what mechanism is there in our system to ensure the<br>\nimplementation of those principles, and under what sanction?<br>\nAbsolutely none.<\/p>\n<p>That is where a revitalization, if not a reform, is in order,<br>\nin the sense of developing an effective mechanism to ensure the<br>\nimplementation of constitutional provisions. More, of course, is<br>\nneeded. To say that there is no deed for reform, because the<br>\npresent system is effective, is to misunderstand the essence of<br>\ndemocracy. To be sure, the present system is very effective, that<br>\nis, in terms of the exercise of power -- by the executive --<br>\npractically without constraints. That is certainly not the kind<br>\nof democracy the 1945 Constitution provides. And who is to have<br>\nthe final say whether we need a reform?<\/p>\n<p>Yes, while an ideal democracy has universal value, as a<br>\nsystem, it may vary. Yet any variant of democracy should not<br>\nbetray its essence. In a democracy, power comes from the people,<br>\nand it is, therefore, to serve the interests of the people, and,<br>\nas such, it is to be subject to control by the people, to ensure<br>\nits proper use and to avoid, or at least minimize its abuse.<br>\nThese form the essential ingredients of a democracy.<\/p>\n<p>It is unfair to dismiss earnest suggestions for reform as<br>\n\"alien\" to the nation's identity. Are we serious in our rejection<br>\nof all things \"alien\"? Moreover, how is \"national identity\" to be<br>\ndefined, and who is to define it anyway?<\/p>\n<p>It would be good if the executive branch initiated reform, for<br>\nlegislative powers are vested in its hands. This, however, seems<br>\nunlikely.<\/p>\n<p>One would hope for initiatives by the People's Consultative<br>\nAssembly, the supreme governing body in the Indonesian system as<br>\nholder of the people's sovereignty. But here, one would get into<br>\na vicious circle. It would be a long and complex story that<br>\ncannot possibly be explained in one stroke.<\/p>\n<p>At all events, leaving everything to the leader, whose every<br>\npronouncement is to be legally binding for the whole nation, is<br>\ntantamount to applying the principle of \"the King can do no<br>\nwrong\". If one still calls that \"democracy\", we have a serious<br>\nproblem on our hands. How, for instance, would one distinguish<br>\nthe Pancasila Democracy of the New Order from the \"Guided<br>\nDemocracy\" of the Old Order?<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/opposition-whats-in-a-name-1447893297",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}