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.