Should we amend or replace the basic law?<\/p>\n
There is no doubt that the success of Indonesia's campaign to
\ntransform itself into a democratic nation hinges on the presence
\nof a strong and supportive constitution. More than three years
\ninto the reform movement, and after three series of amendments,
\nquestions are now being asked about whether the 1945 Constitution
\nhas what it takes to build a peaceful and prosperous nation.<\/p>\n
How many more changes do we need to make to our basic laws?<\/p>\n
Would it not be better, or certainly simpler, for the nation
\nto simply draw up a new constitution, instead of making piecemeal
\nchanges that are often dictated more by the short-term interests
\nof political parties?<\/p>\n
History is certainly not on the side of the 1945 Constitution.<\/p>\n
While supporters of the basic laws say it has succeeded in
\nkeeping this ethnically diverse nation together, it has failed
\nmiserably in ensuring a solid nation building process for these
\npast 56 years.<\/p>\n
On the contrary, the 1945 Constitution has produced two
\npresidents hungry for power: Sukarno and Soeharto.<\/p>\n
While many people have acknowledged that the 1945 Constitution
\nis so vaguely worded that it is open to interpretation --
\nneedless to say, it is the ruler's interpretation that always
\nprevails -- not many are prepared to have it discarded
\ncompletely, more for emotional reasons than anything else.<\/p>\n
Others argue that the preamble to the 1945 Constitution should
\nnever be changed for it acknowledges and maintains the presence
\nof diverse ethnic groups, cultures and religions in this country.<\/p>\n
The year 2002 will be a crucial time for the future of the
\nConstitution. The People's Consultative Assembly is working on
\nthe fourth package of amendments, one that is expected to make
\nsignificant changes with regard to the way this nation elects its
\npresident and vice president in the 2004 general election.<\/p>\n
While there is a widespread consensus on using a direct
\npresidential election system, the devil is in the details.<\/p>\n
The MPR in its November session could not reach an agreement,
\nand here the debate is heavily wrought with the vested interests
\nof the main political factions. Needless to say, these are short
\nterm interests, looking at how each party would fare in 2004
\nunder the new election system.<\/p>\n
The failure of the MPR factions to come to an agreement has
\nmade the argument for an independent constitutional commission
\neven more imperative.<\/p>\n
While the idea of an independent commission was mooted by
\nPresident Megawati Soekarnoputri in her independence day speech
\nin August, her own Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI
\nPerjuangan) party had not been receptive to the idea. Even
\nMegawati herself has since made no mention about her proposal.<\/p>\n
As the November debate on the details of the direct
\npresidential election shows, the major political factions are
\nsimply not ready to give up their power to appoint the president,
\nwhich is theirs under the current setting.<\/p>\n
The biggest drawback of the current system, in which the MPR
\nhas the power to appoint and remove the president, is that it
\ncould produce a president who does not necessarily enjoy the
\npopular support of the majority.<\/p>\n
A case in point was the election of Abdurrahman \"Gus Dur\"
\nWahid in 1999, even though his own National Awakening Party (PKB)
\ncame third in the general election.<\/p>\n
Megawati, whose PDI Perjuangan won the general election, had
\nto settle for the vice presidency.<\/p>\n
Ironically, it was also the MPR that booted out Gus Dur and
\npromoted Megawati to the number one post in July.<\/p>\n
Such is the power of the MPR, thanks to the series of
\nconstitutional amendments, which makes it hard to envisage the
\npolitical factions ever wanting to give it up.<\/p>\n
But it is not only the MPR's power that is under threat.<\/p>\n
Its own existence is also in question. Without the power to
\nappoint and replace the president, what is the purpose of having
\nan MPR at all?<\/p>\n
In endorsing the very idea of a direct presidential election
\nsystem, the MPR factions, knowingly or not, have undermined their
\nown existence. Changing the way the nation elects their president
\nmeans making a whole lot of other changes to the Constitution.<\/p>\n
\"One of the fundamental flaws in the 1945 Constitution is the
\ncreation of the MPR, with virtually unlimited powers,\" said one
\nof the panelists at a discussion hosted by The Jakarta Post.<\/p>\n
On one hand, the Constitution says that sovereignty is in the
\nhands of the people, on the other, it creates an MPR that is not
\nanswerable or accountable to anyone, not even to the people.<\/p>\n
The way the debate has been going, a new senate-like body
\nwould be established in place of the MPR, strengthening the
\nrepresentation of the regions.<\/p>\n
Dissolving the MPR, the nation will do away with the presence
\nof unelected representatives in the legislature. Those with the
\nmost to lose therefore are the factions of the interest groups
\nand the Indonesian Military\/National Police.<\/p>\n
Campaigners for constitutional reform say whether the nation
\namends the 1945 Constitution or replaces it with a totally new
\none, the most important aspect is the presence of a mechanism of
\nchecks and balances to prevent power abuses by the state
\nlegislatures.<\/p>\n
Then, there is also the question of accountability of holders
\nof elected public office, something that is not clearly spelled
\nout in the current basic laws.<\/p>\n
And whether one is for constitutional amendment or a
\ncompletely new constitution, many articles in the 1945
\nConstitution definitely need reviewing.<\/p>\n
One panelist states that by stating that a President must be
\nan \"indigenous\" citizen, the Constitution is discriminating
\nagainst minority ethnic groups, like the Chinese.<\/p>\n
While this clause was inserted back in 1945 to preclude the
\npossibility of a Japanese becoming president in the aftermath of
\nWorld War II, Indonesia, then under a Japanese military
\noccupation, proclaimed its independence in August 1945.<\/p>\n
That clause on \"indigenous\" citizen has remained unchanged and
\nhad been used to discourage Chinese and other minority ethnic
\ngroups from running for public office.<\/p>\n
Changes in the constitution, whether through major amendments
\nor through the drafting of a new one, is what Indonesia needs
\ntoday.<\/p>\n
Whether the MPR has the ability to affect those changes is
\nanother question. Looking at its performance in November, there
\nis good reason for pessimism.<\/p>\n
Certainly, without outside prodding -- here is where non-
\ngovernmental organizations come in -- it is hard to expect the
\nMPR to implement those reforms.<\/p>\n
One thing is for certain, the nation's founding fathers who
\ndrew up the 1945 Constitution never intended to make it
\npermanent.<\/p>\n
The last article in the Constitution recognizes the
\nprovisional nature of the basic law -- as good as the basic law
\nmay seem, it was hastily drafted -- and allows for amendments.<\/p>\n
The question is now left to present day leaders: How much and
\nhow fast do we need to change the constitution to bring the
\ncountry closer to the ideals of a more humane civil society?<\/p>\n
At any rate, it is clear now that amending or replacing the
\nconstitution, which essentially determines the future of this
\nnation, has become too precious to be left entirely in the hands
\nof mostly short-sighted 700 members of the MPR.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/should-we-amend-or-replace-the-basic-law-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}