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.