Was it worth the effort?<\/p>\n
Most of the lawmakers assembled for a little over a week in
\nJakarta for the Annual Session of the nation's supreme policy-
\nmaking body, the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), would
\ncertainly resent being labeled ineffective; nor is it entirely
\nfair to say that the session that ended yesterday was a total
\nwaste of time, energy and tax-payers' money. After all, the
\nlawmakers in the MPR can point to some tangible progress made in
\ntheir deliberations.<\/p>\n
For example, there is the rather grandiose, even if hazy,
\nconcept of \"Vision 2020\", which the Assembly passed to serve as a
\npolicy guideline for the government and the nation to achieve
\nprosperity within the next 20 years. What \"Vision 2020\" envisions
\nis nothing less than achieving national unity, establishing a
\ndemocratic political system and a productive and fair economic
\nsystem, establishing a civilized social and cultural system,
\ndeveloping qualified human resources and countering the negative
\nimpacts of globalization -- all within the time span of those two
\ndecades.<\/p>\n
Also -- and on a more substantial plane -- there is the
\nagreement in principle to transform the MPR from the all-powerful
\nagglomeration of elected party representatives and appointed
\nlegislators that it is at present into a bicameral system
\nconsisting of all elected members and regional representatives to
\nmake for a more publicly accountable parliament.<\/p>\n
On the question of direct presidential elections, however, the
\nprogress was partial -- that is to say, there has been agreement
\non the principle of direct presidential election without the
\nAssembly having been able to bridge differences on details such
\nhow to proceed next in the event the presidential and vice-
\npresidential candidates fail to win an outright majority of
\nvotes. The question was deferred for debate in the Assembly's
\nupcoming session next year.<\/p>\n
Thus, once again, it is not entirely fair to say that this
\nyear's annual session of the MPR achieved nothing. Still, given
\nthe crisis situation the nation is currently in, the question of
\nwhether the session was worth the expenditures of time, energy
\nand, especially, money persists. Overall, it must be said that
\nthe nation had expected a good deal more from their top
\nlegislators.<\/p>\n
For example, the global situation has been drastically changed
\nin the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States and the
\nensuing war in Afghanistan. As a result, the global economy is
\nexperiencing a serious downturn with equally serious consequences
\nfor Indonesia. None of these pressing issues were addressed by
\nthe MPR, no suggestions or policy guidelines for tackling the
\neconomy in this time of crisis were adopted. The question of
\nconstitutional reform is left dangling.<\/p>\n
Given the opportunities that were missed, the answer to the
\nquestion raised above could well be in the negative. The apathy
\nwith which most average Indonesians have greeted the MPR's annual
\nsession could well reflect the general feeling prevailing in the
\ncommunity: the money could have been better spent elsewhere,
\nwhere it is needed.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/was-it-worth-the-effort-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}