A wake-up call

The Senayan cowboys strike again. Last week, in an unprecedented move, legislators from the House Commission I disqualified eight of 27 ambassadorial candidates. The cited reasons were that the candidates reportedly had poor track records and a lack of knowledge about the countries in which they were soon to be posted.

Another reason was, one of the candidates was too old, having reached retirement age, while another one was considered "too young", and therefore needs another round of diplomatic postings before he could be considered for a high post.

The incident is another example of how our legislators have used their newly found political clout to intervene in what once used to belong to the domain of the executive branch.

Two years ago, in order to curtail to the executive-heavy system that prevailed during Soeharto regime that practically have left the House of Representatives (DPR) as nothing but a rubber stamp, the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) amended the Constitution, to give more muscle to the House. Article 13 of the amended Constitution stipulates that with regard to the appointment of ambassadors, the president should take into account the House's opinion. The Article also stipulates that the president should also take into account the House's opinion with the regard to the appointment of foreign ambassadors to Indonesia.

Although the wording, "to take into account the House's opinion" is debatable, since many believed that the House's opinion is not binding, it is obvious that our legislators have their own interpretation of the stipulation. "Actually, if we tighten our selection, perhaps more than half of the candidates would be disqualified", legislator Djoko Susilo said.

The legislators' latest move has sent tremors through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which originally submitted the list of candidates to the House. Many officials questioned the ability of the legislators to perform a proper screening of the candidates. Some even alleged that certain legislators had a "hidden agenda" as they themselves also aspire to become ambassadors.

Nonetheless, from Senayan came only denials. "Most of them were unable to demonstrate any concrete understanding. Their research papers usually only included a copied version of a travel guide", Djoko Susilo said. Prior to the examination, the candidates had to submit a 20-page report, describing their view and plans upon arrival in the host country. "If we had conducted the fit and proper test publicly, most of the candidates would have been embarrassed because the public would see what a lack of quality they possess," legislator Yasril Ananta Baharuddin added.

The hidden agenda issue aside, what happened shows what many have complained about for decades: That the quality of many of our diplomats is poor. In the past an ambassadorial post was sometimes doled out like a consolation prize for officials and generals who had completed their services, or reached a certain rank, without regard for any diplomatic competency.

President Megawati Soekarnoputri, in the past few months has repeatedly raised the issue of the need to improve the quality and professionalism of our diplomats. The disqualification of the eight ambassadorial candidates thus should be taken as another wake-up call to our diplomatic corps. The dismissal of the eight candidates should also be viewed from a positive side: That the public will have a say in the nomination of our ambassador.

We also believe that the government and the House should share the same view: merit system should be the rule of the game in the appointment of ambassador. If someone, despite his or her age is proven capable to hold an ambassadorial post, he or she should be given a chance. This way we could drop the "normal" requirement that a career diplomat should have at least 32 years of service before becoming eligible to be appointed as ambassador. This way we could rejuvenate our diplomatic corps. This way we could have more capable and professional diplomats representing us throughout the world.

Consequently, the government should reorganize the whole system of diplomat training and the career-system for them in order to reach this goal.

The question now is, should the president take into account the House's opinion? Can the president just ignore it, as the appointment of ambassador is a president's right?

The answer, of course, is that it is up to the president. We believe the House's opinion is not binding. But, judging by the way our legislators are flexing their muscles, and the way our current president does not want to antagonize the House, it would be likely that the government would have to submit another ambassadorial candidate list soon.

Although one may believe that the House's move to make the process of the appointment of ambassador to be more transparent is positive, one thing should be amended. The stipulation in the Constitution that the president has to take into account the House's opinion in the matter of the appointment of foreign ambassador to Indonesia should be reviewed.

The reason is that it is against international norms. Indonesia reportedly is the only country in the world that applies such a requirement. Our bureaucratic process is notoriously slow. Therefore, a prolonged process of obtaining the House's opinion may hinder relations with the host country.

As amending the Constitution may take years, a simple solution is by an agreement, or an understanding, whatever, from the House that it will put aside and will not demand the application of the stipulation. Such a move would show that the legislators, if circumstances demanded, could show that they are not cowboys, but statesmen.