Save Our Sovereignty<\/p>\n
While both the 1945 Constitution and the state ideology,
\nPancasila, specifically state that sovereignty lies in the hands
\nof the people, a handful of politicians, or nearly 500 to be
\nexact, are now about to subvert the right of more than 210
\nmillion people. As deliberations on the bill on general elections
\nin the House of Representatives come to an end, it is becoming
\nincreasingly clear the political parties will take that
\nsovereignty from the hands of the people.<\/p>\n
The factions deliberating the legislation have reached a
\n"compromise" to adopt proportional representation (PR) with what
\nthey call an "open list of candidates" system. This means that
\nvoters will choose a political party, rather than a specific
\ncandidate, but they will have a glimpse of the candidates of the
\nparty of their choice, and its order of preference, in the
\ndesignated regions. The final say of who represents the party in
\nthe legislature will still lie in the hands of party bosses.<\/p>\n
This, so the major factions in the House claim, is a
\ncompromise, because PDI Perjuangan (the Indonesian Democratic
\nParty of Struggle), as the largest faction in the House, had
\nearlier insisted on PR with a "closed list of candidates" system,
\nwhere voters would have had even less idea about who would get to
\nrepresent them in the legislature.<\/p>\n
Just to ensure that party bosses hold the real political
\npower, rather than the elected candidates or their constituents,
\nthe bill also revives parties' rights to recall their
\nrepresentatives from the legislature, for whatever reason.<\/p>\n
This clause was removed from the 1999 general election law,
\nthus allowing elected representatives to dissent or break away
\nfrom party lines without fearing repercussions. Over the last
\nfour years, we have seen one or two legislators defy their own
\nparty on several issues because they felt that they owed their
\nallegiance more to the public than their party.<\/p>\n
Alas, we won't see this happening after 2004, if the bill on
\ngeneral elections is endorsed in its present format.<\/p>\n
Clearly, the spirit of the legislation on elections, just like
\nthe law on political parties endorsed in December, was to give as
\nmuch power to the political parties vis-a-vis the people.<\/p>\n
The alternative system, where people vote for candidates
\nrather than political parties, was never even considered by the
\nHouse. Yet, this is the system that fulfills most closely the
\nspirit of Kedaulatan Rakyat (People's Sovereignty) recognized in
\nthe Constitution, and in the fourth tenet of Pancasila.<\/p>\n
This "district electoral system" has the appeal that it would
\nsignificantly remedy all the political ills that we have seen
\nunder the present system.<\/p>\n
The district system will bring constituents and their
\nrepresentatives closer together. Constituents can exercise some
\ncontrol over their elected representatives. This system ensures
\ngreater accountability on the part of politicians to the people.<\/p>\n
This is the system that is best suited to promote
\nparticipatory democracy, in which the public can actively
\nparticipate in national decision-making processes all the time.
\nThe PR system only promotes representative democracy, in which
\nthe role of voters is largely confined to what happens on
\nelection day. Once they have exercised their voting right, the
\nelected parties can afford to ignore their opinions completely,
\njust as they have been doing all these years.<\/p>\n
There is no doubt that the district electoral system best
\nguarantees the sovereignty of the people. The reasons why this
\noption was not even considered in deliberations on the bill vary,
\nbut all are feeble and boil down to an excuse not to return
\nsovereignty to the hands of the people.<\/p>\n
Most political parties, even those that profess to be pro-
\nreform, say they are not ready for an overhaul of the system.
\nOthers say that the public is not educated enough, or ready for
\nradical change. Some say the district system would ensure victory
\nfor Golkar, and is therefore against the interests of political
\nreform. Others also say that a PR system reflects better the
\ndiversity of the political spectrum in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
But this is not so much a question of whether or not the
\nnation is ready for change, because the reform movement launched
\nin 1998 was about fundamental change in the first place. This is
\nmore a question of whether or not politicians are willing to
\nrelinquish power and return it to the people.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, this bill looks set to be endorsed by the
\nHouse, under pressure to complete it quickly to ensure that the
\nnation can organize the 2004 general election in time. Once
\nagain, the need for political expediency is overtaking the need
\nto ensure that changes are in place that are crucial for
\nIndonesia to become a genuine democracy.<\/p>\n
It is now clear that the greatest danger to our sovereignty
\ndoes not come from external forces, as some narrow-minded,
\nnationalist politicians would have us believe. It comes from our
\nown power-hungry politicians, who are taking sovereignty from the
\nhands of the people right under our very own noses.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/save-our-sovereignty-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}