Process of constitutional reform ambivalent<\/p>\n
J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Political Analyst, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Controversies have developed in the country over
\nconstitutional amendments. It could well be a crossroads in the
\nprocess of reform.<\/p>\n
On the one hand, there are those who believe that the process
\nof constitutional amendments has not gone far enough. Others
\nthink that the reform process has gone too far. They are
\nconcerned about the possibility that the process of amendments,
\nnow at its third stage, may well end with a completely new
\nconstitution substituting the current 1945 Constitution. They are
\nof the view that while amendable, the 1945 Constitution is to be
\nof permanent nature, particularly as regards the basic values
\ncontained therein, especially in its preamble, the five
\nprinciples of Pancasila.<\/p>\n
Indeed, such conservative people seem inclined to regard
\nIndonesia's founding fathers as infallible visionaries, whose
\n\"common\" vision the present generation of Indonesians ought
\nsimply to try to realize and to carry out fully. In fact, the
\nfounding fathers certainly could not have foreseen or
\nanticipated, nor understood the changes that have taken place in
\nthe world since their time. Nor could they have seen the way the
\nsystem they created has been operating in the present world.<\/p>\n
It is therefore wrong to regard whatever ideas propounded by
\nthe founding fathers, such as the 1945 Constitution and the
\nPancasila ideology, as sacrosanct and therefore not to be subject
\nto any change in accordance with changing times and changing
\ndemands. The present generation cannot and should not take many
\nthings for granted that the previous generations of Indonesian
\nleaders did as regards a number of ideas like Indonesian
\nnationhood and national unity.<\/p>\n
Indeed, many seem so averse to change that they would resort
\nto vague and incomprehensible concepts and terminologies. One
\namendment to an article in the 1945 Constitution is an example:
\nBefore amendment, the article on sovereignty was that
\n\"sovereignty of the people shall be fully implemented by the
\nPeople's Consultative Assembly\" (MPR). Now, however, it has been
\nsubstituted by a circular definition: \"Sovereignty shall be fully
\nimplemented by the people according to the Constitution\".<\/p>\n
A direct election of the president, which has generally been
\naccepted, would logically lead to the abolition of the People's
\nConsultative Assembly, since it would logically strip the
\nAssembly of its essential constitutional roles. But no one has
\nyet voiced that suggestion.<\/p>\n
It seems clear that those legislators in the MPR only think of
\ntheir own short-term interest. Understandably, they would not
\namend the constitution so as to sign their own death warrant, as
\nit were.<\/p>\n
They seem to forget, however, that they are not going to be in
\nthe MPR forever, at least because no person is immortal. But they
\nalso forget that constitutional change or amendments are above
\nall for future generations.<\/p>\n
The same may be said about the so-called representatives of
\nthe functional group, a concept without real foundation. They
\nwant to continue to maintain that senseless concept simply
\nbecause it was created by the founding fathers.<\/p>\n
In fact, the founding fathers' idea of the party system was so
\nsimplistic as to be limited to their understanding of the so-
\ncalled politik aliran -- based on ethnic, religious, or
\nideological foundations -- rather than a party system that would
\nattempt to represent as wide range of interests as possible.
\nThus, the party system to be developed ought to be one that would
\naccommodate the interests of whatever groups claiming to be of a
\n\"functional\" nature.<\/p>\n
Otherwise the number of the so-called functional groups is
\nlikely to increase beyond reason rather than decrease. And unless
\nand until such functional groups feel that their interests are
\naccommodated, represented and served by political parties, they
\nwould continue to feel they have the rights -- privilege, in fact
\n-- to be represented through appointment.<\/p>\n
Or, equally harmful to democracy, claiming to uphold
\ndemocratic principles, they may form their own political parties
\nso as to be able to contest the elections. This would only
\nincrease the already unbelievable, irrational and shameful number
\nof political parties registered thus far.<\/p>\n
No less basic is the question of understanding the term
\n\"reform\". So far, there has been a confusing position of many
\nthat amendments can only be made to the body, not the preamble,
\nof the 1945 Constitution. Soeharto's New Order was so successful
\nin imposing on Indonesians -- through indoctrination begun by
\nSukarno -- the sacred or sacrosanct nature of so many ideas,
\nparticularly the Pancasila ideology.<\/p>\n
In fact, democratic ideals would adequately cover all the five
\nprinciples of Pancasila. Never to dare to change Pancasila as an
\nideology -- which is no more than a formulation of ideals -- is
\nonly an indication of the existing differences in understanding
\nthose principles. This clearly refers particularly to the first
\nprinciple. By making Pancasila sacrosanct, we would perpetuate
\nthese differences, for Indonesians are yet to learn how to handle
\ndifferences peacefully.<\/p>\n
In addition, such ideals as national unity has for long been
\ntaken for granted rather than maintained through the promotion of
\nsocial justice. Unfortunately, national unity has been confused
\nwith the unitary form of the Indonesian state. This has led to
\nthe incomprehensible slogan of \"national unity and uniformity\"
\n(persatuan dan kesatuan).<\/p>\n
Indeed, by definition \"reform\" means a change within and
\nthrough the existing system. That, however, should not bar an
\neventual change of the constitution itself, if that is in the
\nbest interest of the nation. The debate on whether the 1945
\nConstitution is of temporary or permanent nature is only an
\nindication of ignorance, intellectual inadequacy and lack of
\nknowledge, particularly of contemporary history. A number of
\ncountries, East and West alike, have changed their constitutions
\nand survived. Nevertheless, some people now take a contradictory
\nstand, that \"the constitution may be amended, but not the
\nsystem\".<\/p>\n
What is seriously wrong about the process of constitutional
\nreform in this country is that our politicians have no common
\nvision; no common goal towards which reform should ultimately
\nlead; no common understanding of why we really need reform and
\nwhat reform is really about. They also differ among themselves on
\nthe extent to which the political system has contributed to the
\nnever-ending multidimensional crisis that has hit the country.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/process-of-constitutional-reform-ambivalent-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}