An exercise in democracy

Many theories are being bandied about concerning the decision of the House of Representatives to summon President Abdurrahman Wahid to explain his decision to fire two Cabinet ministers last month.

Cynics say it could be the start of a complex constitutional process to impeach the President. The less pessimistic see it as the House simply using its right to demand an explanation from the head of state on policy matters. Whether an impeachment is the final outcome of the process is secondary to the real issue of how the President explains himself, and how the House reacts to his account.

This is the second time the House has used its interpellation right to summon the President to explain particular policy decisions. In November, the President was called in to explain his decision to close the ministries of information and social services as soon as he was elected in October. At that time, he handled himself well and survived the grilling politically unscathed.

This time, the President is within his rights to invoke his constitutional prerogative in changing his Cabinet. The House is equally within its rights to invoke its interpellation procedure.

The President has explained to House leaders behind closed doors that he fired Laksamana Sukardi and Jusuf Kalla from his economic team because of allegations they were involved in corruption, collusion and nepotism. Although made in private, his stunning revelation was leaked within minutes of it being uttered, and sparked protests not only by the two former ministers, but by their supporters in the House. It is natural therefore that the House now feel obliges to demand a fuller explanation, and this time on the record.

There is nothing untoward about these institutions, the presidency and the House, exercising their rights. They are simply using the powers accorded them in a democracy to manage this country. If anything, this is a healthy sign of the country's leaders indulging in an exercise in democracy, through debate, in settling differences. If by some chance impeachment is indeed the final outcome, one could at least say that it came after a democratic process.

The final outcome is now the subject of fervent speculation by political pundits. With 277 House members signing the petition to use the interpellation right, it is easy to assume that many members, from the total of 500, would vote against the President if the matter was put to a motion of no confidence. What these pundits fail to explain is that a motion of no confidence is not recognized in our political system. Only the People's Consultative Assembly has the right to summon a president to ask for accountability, and then vote on its acceptance. Rejection would mean impeachment.

The House has other options if it feels that the President's explanation is unsatisfactory. It has the right to investigate the President and if it found he committed a grave error, it could recommend the Assembly convene for an emergency session to demand his accountability. Only then is impeachment possible. However, it is a lengthy procedure and assumes that the House is united, which it is not.

As we let the political pundits size up the likelihood of impeachment, the rest of the nation should sit back and watch as events unfold. We should observe the legislators debate their way through in the learning process of adapting and using the democratic tools at their disposal. This is one way for politicians to hone their skills and statesmanship qualities.

Given the President's penchant for humor, his next address to the House is bound to be another public spectacle. He was not far off in November when he dismissed House members as a bunch of kindergarten kids. But he was wrong in not acknowledging that when it comes to democracy, Indonesia is still at the bottom of a long and difficult learning curve. All of us, the President included, still have a long way to go to reach the top.