An exercise in democracy

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.