Analysts point at pitfalls in Constitution

Analysts point at pitfalls in Constitution

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Although hailed as a milestone by the reform movement, the
amended 1945 Constitution contained flaws that could lead to
complexity at elections, an overly powerful legal body and a weak
bicameral system, political analyst said on Thursday.

Analysts praised last week's amendments to the Constitution as
"surprisingly good". A mix of public pressure and the MPR
listening for a change gave the reform movement a legal umbrella,
the analysts said.

Yet they also highlighted shortcomings that, although not
fundamental, could present the nation problems.

Rizal Mallarangeng of the Freedom Institute said direct
presidential elections were an example. Under the new
Constitution the presidential candidate with the most votes might
not win the race after all.

The Constitution requires a candidate to secure at least 51
percent of the votes nationwide and at least 20 percent of the
votes in more than half of Indonesia's 30 provinces.

Without a simple majority the election would take the best two
candidates for a second round.

Rizal said that a candidate leading the first round with 40
percent of the vote, for example, may end up loosing the second
round.

He said that in 2004, President Megawati Soekarnoputri may
secure more than 50 percent of the vote across 15 provinces. But
if she got less than 20 percent of the vote in the remaining
provinces, she must proceed to the second round, Rizal explained.

"You then have to accept the fact that we must go on to the
second stage; and we must be prepared to lose at that stage,"
Rizal said during a discussion on politics held by the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

He said the public should be informed about such scenarios to
avoid unrest by disappointed supporters of presidential
candidates.

Another pitfall of the amended Constitution was the
Constitutional Court, Rizal added. He said the new court was
meant to refer back to the Constitution when solving the
country's problems.

But he warned the judges who made up the court could interfere
with government policies to the extent that they become the ones
deciding them.

"Megawati's government hasn't set up a social policy for the
poor, so that's unconstitutional. They (the Court) have a case to
at least inquire about it," he said.

He said the Court might also view the privatization program as
violating Article 33 of the Constitution and demand the program
be scrapped.

Article 33 requires the state control economic resources that
concern public interests. The government is currently selling off
state assets to plug a shortfall in its state budget, prompting
criticism that vital assets are falling into private or foreign
hands.

"So whoever has the final word on what the Constitution means
legally has the most amount of political power in their hands,"
he said.

CSIS analyst Harry Tjan Silalahi pointed at another weakness,
saying he was dubious about the Regional Representatives Council
(DPD).

Based on the amended Constitution, the People's Consultative
Assembly (MPR) will, by 2004, consist of only elected members
under a bicameral system, namely members of the House of
Representatives and the DPD.

This would resemble representation in the United States where
the Senate seats regional representatives and the Congress
political representatives.

While members of the House could pass laws, they actually have
less political legitimacy than the regional council whose members
the public elect individually, he added.

But Harry said that unlike in the U.S., Indonesia's regional
council lacked political clout, having no authority to pass laws.

"Their unclear function makes them weak representatives," he
told participants.