Analyzing the results of the Annual Session

Analyzing the results of the Annual Session

The Indonesian Military (TNI) has been given a lot of credit
for its role in persuading other parties to accept constitutional
amendments, and for its readiness to leave the People's
Consultative Assembly (MPR) earlier than scheduled. The Jakarta
Post's Kornelius Purba spoke to Jun Honna, assistant professor at
the Faculty of International Relations, Ritsumeikan University in
Kyoto, Japan. Honna followed the recent MPR session as an
observer.

Question: How did you find the MPR's Annual Session?

Answer: The Assembly session was much better than expected.
Before the session many expected a deadlock, because there were
some groups of politicians who disagreed with certain articles in
the amendment ... The (fourth) constitutional amendment went
well, including the (agreement to adopt a) direct presidential
election. The next MPR will have no more appointed seats, all MPR
members will be elected directly. This is big progress in
creating a modern constitution.

What about the sudden change in the stance of those who were
against the amendment?

I think the biggest problem is with PDI Perjuangan (Indonesian
Democratic Party of Struggle). They were the strongest opponents
because many in the party have very old and narrow nationalistic
views. These people are supporters of first president Sukarno,
and (believe) the Constitution is untouchable, and that a change
of Constitution will lead to national disintegration. ...

At the PDI Perjuangan congress in Bali last year, more than
half of the party branches opposed the amendment. President
Megawati Soekarnoputri (PDI Perjuangan chairperson) herself at
first was very opposed to the amendment. The problem is that PDI
Perjuangan has to consider public opinion and most Indonesians
agree with constitutional amendments.

Assembly members across the factions, including PDI Perjuangan
led by Arifin Panigoro, tried to persuade Megawati that the
amendment was unavoidable, because if Megawati resisted she would
be in a very bad position, her popularity would decline. They
succeeded in persuading Megawati. Her husband Taufik Kiemas
actually opposed the amendment but Arifin lobbied Megawati. One
day before the session, members of different factions met with
Megawati. Arifin had a very good tactic in approaching Megawati.
She was finally convinced.

What's the strategy behind the TNI's decision to leave the
MPR?

The strategy is very clear; the TNI under Gen. Endriartono
Sutarto is very straightforward. He has strong leadership, and he
thinks the Constitution is the most important thing for the TNI,
because the TNI has the task to protect the Constitution. The TNI
thought the constitutional amendment should be completed and if
politicians kept quarreling about it at the MPR level, the TNI
leadership thought this could create a very unstable condition,
because the Constitution should have legitimacy; and if you do
not include society, but only put forth a constitution created by
the political elites, the country will not be stable because
people will always complain.

Sutarto thinks it is better to involve the society in
completing the Constitution as soon as possible to create a
strongly legitimate Constitution. That is why the TNI lobbied
politicians and that is why the TNI supported the amendment and
the creation of a constitutional commission.

Many people suspect that the TNI withdrawal was an astute and
calculated move. Originally, the TNI was to withdraw in 2009 but
now it is changed to 2004.

But for the TNI it is no problem, because its leadership now
understands that even without having legislative seats, they can
use other channels to influence politics. The 38 seats at the
Assembly are not effective (for them). For TNI it is very clear
that they do not need the legislative seats, because if they want
to intervene in politics, they can go directly to Megawati or
other politicians.

Because of such calculations they have decided that they no
longer needed the seats while at the same time it casts them as
real statesmen. The TNI ideology is "for the nation", while TNI
tries to show it is undergoing reform. They are confident they
can control or can influence politics even without the seats.

What's the biggest problem after the Fourth Amendment?

The amendment provides good democratic practices, because the
president is directly elected by the people. She or he will have
strong legitimacy. But we still have a lot of problems, like on
the relationship between the President and the House of
Representatives (DPR). Now the role of DPR is much stronger than
the President. This is understandable because of the history of
an authoritarian regime under Soeharto, where the DPR was very
weak.

But now the House seems too strong, there is no check and
balance between the president and the House. If the President
proposes a law, the House has no obligation to pass the law,
while if the DPR proposes a law and the President vetoes it, then
DPR only needs to wait for 30 days to implement the law.

The role of the president is very weak, but the presidency
will have very strong legitimacy (after 2004), so there is a gap
between this strong legitimacy and the president's power. You
need to create a very clear balance of power between the
President and the DPR.

Another concern is money politics. There's a new system but
the politicians' way of thinking has not changed much. To make a
coalition politicians still think the most effective way is to
buy votes. Many people at PDI Perjuangan think that Megawati has
to fight against the Islamic coalition; and that support must be
gained from other groups like Golkar and TNI. To win the
elections, many PDI Perjuangan leaders think money must be used.
That is my concern, but it also happens in other countries; the
ones with money are those in the government.

Who gains the most with the current constitutional amendment?

The TNI. There was an initiative by Gen. Sutarto with his
proposal on either amending the constitution or returning to the
1945 text. Before Sutarto's initiatives many political parties
thought differently (such as those who entirely opposed the
amendment) but after his statement the political parties joined
the bandwagon. After the military showed its position, other
parties then changed theirs. The initiative was politically
important for the fusion of different ideas. If you look at the
amendment changes there is not much change compared to TNI's
proposal, except for its proposal of a constitutional commission
by 2002.

Will things improve with the amended constitution?

You have a democratic constitution but it does not
automatically create a good political situation. Many laws and
regulations for better transparency are still needed to eradicate
corruption, and enforce legal certainty. These are big issues,
and this has nothing to do with the constitution. For many people
solving these chronic problems is much more important than the
Constitution.