The Assembly and economic recovery<\/p>\n
Sri Mulyani, Economist, Atlanta, U.S.<\/p>\n
The Annual Session of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) is
\nnow over and this convention of the country's highest body --
\nattended by the people's representatives -- has not left any
\nmeaningful marks for the recovery of the country's economy, which
\nhas stood still since the onset of the economic crisis.<\/p>\n
The crisis, which began in 1997, has brought about radical
\nchanges in Indonesian politics: Four presidents in all and the
\nnew \"ferocious\" attitude of the MPR and the House of
\nRepresentatives (DPR), which used to be merely rubber stamp
\ninstitutions.<\/p>\n
These dramatic and radical changes are not taking place
\nwithout reason. The political changes reflect the country's
\nrequirement to rebuild a healthier political process, where
\n\"checks and balances\" become the mainstay.<\/p>\n
This is a change in direction to the very dominant -- close to
\nabsolute -- power of the presidency during the New Order regime,
\nresulting in various distortions that were detrimental to the
\nnation and in contrast to the public's sense of justice.<\/p>\n
A more balanced and mutually controlling political process
\nrequires an institution that is itself more balanced and of high
\nquality. However, such institutional improvements have not
\noccurred in the past few months or years. Both institutions
\ngreatly lack the capacity to execute proper and credible power.<\/p>\n
There is no institution and supporting staff of good quality
\nthat are paid enough to prepare policy materials that are
\naccountable to the public. In most of the consultation forums
\nwith ministers or other institutions, the quality of the
\nquestions posed by the representatives are yet to be related to
\npolicy strategies and specific policy backgrounds that can be
\ndebated with reasonable quality.<\/p>\n
Sometimes the questions are irrelevant, without having any
\nclear objectives and are often personal without relation
\nwhatsoever to the policy in discussion. Both institutions, the
\nDPR and MPR, with their newly required power, nowadays seem to be
\nhighly excessive in the use of such power.<\/p>\n
The power, which should be better used to improve the
\npolitical process and the quality of policies, tends to be used
\nmore for personal and group interest. Many reports have shown how
\nthe members are more occupied with trading this new power than
\nthinking about rebuilding the nation.<\/p>\n
Dealing with the economic crisis, which has caused political
\nchanges, needs a clear and firm attitude as well as competent
\ncommitment from the existing political institutions.<\/p>\n
This requirement has not been fulfilled, because the country's
\ninstitutions, which should be balancing their power for a healthy
\nand effective administration, are blocking and sabotaging each
\nother to obstruct policies.<\/p>\n
Worst of all, it can mostly be attributed to the interests of
\ncertain groups. Many cases serve as clear examples. For instance,
\nis the government's commitment to sell assets under the
\nIndonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA) hampered by its own
\nability to execute a clean transaction or has it been obstructed
\nby the DPR's veto, which has intimidated economic ministers?<\/p>\n
The IBRA, which should have been the government's effective
\narm in solving the source of the banks' crises and in
\ntransferring assets as well as settling debts, has become
\nimpotent and the target of criticism and ridicule by various
\npolitical institutions.<\/p>\n
Many are also fond of politicizing the privatization issue, as
\ntheir interest is in maintaining the state corporations to remain
\ncash cows for their own benefit.<\/p>\n
As a result of the economic crisis and after adopting a
\ndemocratic system, the government has become a weak institution.
\nThe power in the hands of the government and the president remain
\nimmense according to the 1945 Constitution, which is now being
\nrevised by the DPR.<\/p>\n
However, the government's authority has reached its lowest
\npoint and it has lost the faith of the public, both due to the
\nabuse of power during former president Soeharto's era as well as
\nto the failures of his successors in managing power credibly and
\nrespectably.<\/p>\n
The Bank Bali scandal surrounding former president B.J.
\nHabibie and the Bulog (State Logistics Agency) scandal, plus the
\nineffectiveness under former president Abdurrahman Wahid have
\nfurther paralyzed the government.<\/p>\n
Under President Megawati Soekarnoputri, the government faces
\nsimilar tests. Although her Indonesian Democratic Party of
\nStruggle (PDI Perjuangan) has a larger electorate and a better
\nopportunity to realize a more effective government, it does not
\nguarantee success.<\/p>\n
The government is still nervous in executing its decisions and
\ncommitments due to the dominant self-interest of groups as well
\nas the high exposure of power by the DPR, whose limits are not
\nyet clear.<\/p>\n
The government needs a clear and firm political umbrella to
\nenable it to execute power and decisions consistently and with a
\nsense of responsibility.<\/p>\n
To solve the economic crisis and to rebuild the country's
\neconomy, a clear political direction is required -- one that has
\n\"explicit roadsigns\" from the country's highest institutions,
\nlike the MPR.<\/p>\n
This is very important, because to build the economy and for
\nthe economy to recover, many difficult and unpopular decisions
\nhave to be made, such as reducing subsidies, or the selling of
\nIBRA's assets and the privatization of state corporations, which
\noften treads on the toes of certain groups, though benefits the
\ngeneral public.<\/p>\n
However, the recent MPR session did not concentrate on finding
\nsolutions to our crippled economy.<\/p>\n
The MPR may have thought that problems like the economic
\ncrisis are to be tackled by the DPR, which does not possess any
\nguidelines on how to handle the predicament.<\/p>\n
In materials prepared by the ad hoc committee and in the
\ndiscussion of the MPR's decisions more attention was focused on
\nrevision to the 1945 Constitution, especially Article 33. The
\ndiscussion was, however, irrelevant to the realistic and basic
\nneeds of economic sustainability and the nation's survival.<\/p>\n
In the absence of attention given by the highest institutions
\nfor the provision of a crystal-clear political umbrella to solve
\nthe nation's most vital problems, there is little that we can
\nexpect in terms of economic recovery.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-assembly-and-economic-recovery-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}