Tyranny by the majority: Current decision making<\/p>\n
J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Political Analyst, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Under Soeharto's New Order, the pattern of decision-making,
\nparticularly in the legislative bodies, invariably took the form
\nof "deliberations towards unanimity" (musyawarah mufakat). The
\ndemocratic mechanism of voting, first described by first
\npresident Sukarno as democracy of "half (50 percent) plus one"
\nwas dismissed as an essence of liberal Western democracy
\nunsuitable to musyawarah mufakat as an expression of the
\ntraditional spirit of mutual cooperation (gotong royong).<\/p>\n
However that pattern of decision making satisfied no one but
\nthe leader himself (the President), who was interested in making
\nso many things sacrosanct, thus not open to challenge or change
\nat all, as part of his efforts to perpetuate his own position and
\npower. The big parties considered the principle of unanimity
\namounted to a tyranny by minorities.<\/p>\n
Yet such fears were baseless, for the minorities always gave
\nway to the wishes of the majorities, for fear of violating the
\nprinciple of unanimity, and precisely for fear of accusations of
\npracticing tyranny by minorities. They did so to the extent that
\nthey agreed to the enactment of legislation that were against
\nhuman rights, and as such, against the ideology of the state,
\nPancasila, particularly the first principle, belief in God.<\/p>\n
Thus the marriage law was passed by unanimity by the
\nlegislature, although it contains an article stipulating that one
\nshall marry in accordance with one's religion, thus imposing the
\nobligation of professing a religion, which is a violation of
\nreligious freedom. The same was true with the law on the national
\nsystem of education of 1989, recently replaced by a new, but
\nworse law.<\/p>\n
In 1978, however, a big party, the United Party of Development
\n(PPP), while not violating the principle of unanimity, dared to
\n"walk out" from the session of the People's Consultative Assembly
\n(MPR), when the Assembly passed the decision of Pancasila
\nindoctrination (P4) "with unanimity" -- because the party did not
\naccept an article on the recognition of beliefs other than
\nreligion (aliran kepercayaan).<\/p>\n
The party again walked out from the MPR session in 1983 when
\nthe MPR passed the state guidelines, which required all political
\nparties and mass organizations to adopt the compulsory
\nrecognition of Pancasila, which also meant that no party or
\norganization would be based the same basis of (asas tunggal --
\nmonolithic ideological basis) Pancasila.<\/p>\n
In the era of reform, often known as the post-Soeharto
\nIndonesia, a walkout was first done by the National Awakening
\nParty (PKB) on the MPR's decision on an earlier Special Session
\nin 2001 that ended with the impeachment of president Abdurrahman
\nWahid and the accession of President Megawati Soekarnoputri. And
\nyet a new way of expressing dissent was then introduced in
\nSeptember 2001 by Megawati's ruling party, the Indonesian
\nDemocratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), in the form of a
\n"note of understanding" to be appended to the DPR's decision to
\nenact the law on broadcasting in September 2003.<\/p>\n
The latest decision pattern of decision-making in the
\nlegislature, particularly the DPR, is the "no-voting" method.
\nThis is not the same at all as Soeharto's style of unanimity. It
\nis one in which a consensus is assumed to have been reached
\nduring the "lobby", thus outside formal sessions, among the
\ndifferent factions in the House-- not the individual House
\nmembers.<\/p>\n
Thus the House speaker simply asks with boring and disgusting
\nnonchalance if the members present can agree on the enactment of
\nthe bill under discussion, and the members will respond almost in
\nunison, "aye" or "agree", without the speaker in the least
\nbothering to look or somehow to check or assess if a majority of
\nthose present, or how large a majority, votes for the bill and
\nhow many, if any, of them are against.<\/p>\n
That recently happened in the case of the enactment of the
\ncontroversial law on the national system of education. It was the
\nunfair, the most dishonest, and the most pretentious and
\nhypocritical way of decision-making, especially in the light of
\nsuch a strategically important legislation.<\/p>\n
It was, in the first place, definitely not a decision based on
\nunanimity, for the entire faction of the PDI Perjuanagan, the
\nlargest in the House, did not even attend the session. At least
\none faction, no matter how small, the faction of Kesatuan
\nKebangsaan Indonesia (national unity of Indonesia), though
\npresent in the session, did express opposition to the enactment
\nof the law and proposed a postponement.<\/p>\n
Secondly, in that light, it seemed doubtful if it was a
\ndecision by a majority.<\/p>\n
Thirdly, it was even doubtful if it was a legal and valid
\ndecision, for oddly, the final session was considered to have met
\nthe quorum required, which was not based on the actual number of
\nmembers attending that final session, but reportedly on the
\nquorum reached at the first of the series of general sessions
\nwhen it was first convened.<\/p>\n
Fourthly, worse still, because there was no voting, while
\nthere was no unanimity, there was no record -- some kind of
\ncongressional record -- on the members' respective performance of
\ntheir voting records, so that in effect the members are not
\naccountable to the people -- generally to their respective
\nconstituencies if such constituencies did exist, which they do
\nnot, for House members are responsible to their parties, which
\nthey represent, rather than the people, despite their official
\ndesignation.<\/p>\n
Worst, however -- fifthly -- it was an unjust procedure of
\ndecision making in view of the controversy of the bill. To force
\nits enactment would amount to a tyranny by the majority,
\nespecially because the controversial issues relate to state
\nintervention provided by the bill in matters of human rights,
\nparticularly freedom of religion.<\/p>\n
In essence it amounted to state intervention in internal
\nmatters of religion, and thus in human conscience. Otherwise a
\nmajority decision through a democratic mechanism would be valid,
\nnot a tyranny by the majority.<\/p>\n
House members should have realized that the forceful
\nimposition of such a controversial law would be harmful to
\nnational unity, at a time when the nation is on the verge of
\ndisintegration. It may well be a bad precedent for future
\nlegislation. When will Indonesian politicians learn honesty, to
\nthemselves, and to the public -- the people whose interests and
\naspirations they are supposed to represent?<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/tyranny-by-the-majority-current-decision-making-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}