A step forward and all homework after MPR session

A step forward and all homework after MPR session

A better constitution, a bicameral system and the exit of the
military and police from legislative politics are among the
results of the recent Annual Session of the People's Consultative
Assembly (MPR). The Jakarta Post's Ati Nurbaiti talked to
constitutional law lecturer Denny Indrayana from Gadjah Mada
University in Yogyakarta on the results and the work ahead.

Question: What are your impressions, in general, of the
results of the Assembly's Annual Session?

Answer: We must appreciate the progress; we have a better
constitution than the 1945 Constitution. But the process of
amending it has barely involved any public participation.
Therefore, the challenge will be the level of acceptance of the
amended constitution. In the beginning of the constitutional
amendment process in South Africa, for example, there were 2
million letters sent to the constitutional commission, or roughly
10 percent of their 24 million people.

Before the MPR session started there were only 127 letters
from our population of over 200 million. Don't blame the people,
blame the political elites who could not attract public
attention.
Legislators have blamed the government for public ignorance,
mainly the office of the State Minister of Communications and
Information, who they said should have properly publicized the
earlier amendments.

It was the fault of the MPR, which was given the authority to
conduct the amendments, and public consultation should have been
inherent in that process.

In South Africa first, the media was used, including radio
programs with over 10 million listeners a week; there were 37
television programs, they made use of the Internet and provided a
hotline in South Africa's 11 languages, and publications were
also issued in Braille. The result was that 73 percent of the
population was well informed about their amendment process.

Our legislators have said they would publicize the amendments
after they were done -- but involving the public comes before
that, not after. The Constitution does not belong to the MPR.
What about substance?

The amendments still have problems regarding checks and
balances. It's now "legislative heavy"; and the new bicameral
system is half-hearted because the regional legislative councils
do not share the role of decision-making with the national
legislature.

Then the impeachment process in article 7 still gives the
authority to the MPR to evaluate the decision of the (future)
Constitutional Court. So it turns out that the MPR still has such
authority. Instead of emphasizing the rule of law we still have a
process prone to politicization; the MPR might take a different
view from the Constitutional Court.

Further, in article 28 we still have the retroactive clause
barring investigations into past human rights violations which
will save the likes of Golkar people (from prosecution).

This is a concrete example of politicking that affects the
substance of the constitution.

Another crucial issue related to public participation is
clause 37 on the form of the state. Without public knowledge it
was suddenly made into a non-amendable article. Regardless of
whether we might change the form of the state this very crucial
clause cannot be made into a non-amendable article.

In Australia, the issue (of changing the form of the state)
was put to a referendum.
What are some problems in the homework after the MPR Session?

So many clauses in the constitution cite further regulation
through laws, which leaves too much power in the hands of
legislators. After criticizing the constitutional amendments all
democratic elements must focus on formulating the bills on
elections, political parties and the composition of the MPR.

The Fourth Amendment was indeed passed but further public
participation will be blocked by limiting the work of the special
committee on the political laws to two months.

We can expect extraordinary distortion in the laws; everything
that has been worked on in the amendments could be changed again.

Another problem is the urgency of a constitutional commission.
Its formation will still depend on the MPR. The MPR decree on the
establishment of the commission says the MPR's Working Body will
determine whether such a commission will be established by 2003.
That the commission is ruled by an MPR decree is very weak. The
next Annual Session could make it void.
What about the military's exit from the representative bodies?

This is indeed another thing to be appreciated. But the
military now seems to have two faces: That of its Chief and that
of the faction which supported the establishment of a
constitutional commission. This, perhaps, reflects two views in
the TNI; one that wants to leave the MPR and another that
doesn't. This might explain their eager, sudden support for a
constitutional commission, which might give them a chance to re-
enter the representative bodies. Fears of such intentions led to
resistance of students against the setting up of the commission.
What should we anticipate in the nation's political life with so
many things left undone ahead of the 2004 General Election?

We must have good conflict management. We only have two years
-- minus the time to formulate the necessary bills. This is a
crucial time for us before the elections of the president, the
members of the legislature and local legislatures because there
should be more participation from the public than ever before.

This could lead to rifts in society, and we will see how ready
people are (for the new elections) because the political elite
will be looking to manipulate people's emotions.

Politicians might try to manipulate the emotions of eastern
Indonesians (who have often felt slighted by Jakarta) by
promoting someone like (Coordinating Minister for People's
Welfare) Jusuf Kalla, from Sulawesi, for president.

Yet we must be ready, or we will have a further, extraordinary
political crises as this is about succession in government.

Would you prefer all the voting to be done on the same day?

Different suggestions have come up (from the Coalition for a
New Constitution which Denny has joined). For instance, the
benefit of having it all at once (voting for members of the
legislature, local legislative councils, and presidential) would
be that the political parties would only have one chance (to
manipulate the people and/or the mechanisms of the vote). If we
have them at different times all the emotional upheaval would be
repeated. If the elections are conducted separately, of course,
everything must be completed in 2004.