Bargaining for a final price at the MPR's Annual Session

Bargaining for a final price at the MPR's Annual Session

More proposals of an independent constitution commission have
somewhat balanced the demands to return to the 1945 Constitution;
but political parties are still "holding hostage" their favorite
articles in the Constitution. Another problem is the legality of
the Annual Session of the People's Consultative Assembly
(MPR)itself, says political lecturer Riswandha Imawan of Gadjah
Mada University in Yogyakarta. He talked to The Jakarta Post's
reporter Sri Wahyuni.

Question: The demand to return to the 1945 Constitution has
led to concerns of a repeat of the 1959 Presidential Decree. How
do you see this?

Answer: There is no reason to issue such a decision. The
country would have to be declared to be in a state of emergency.

This is only possible when anti-reform and pro-reform groups
of the same strength are involved in a conflict and end up in a
deadlock that can cause constitutional crisis, leading to
national disintegration. Theoretically, such a situation will not
emerge in the present context.

First, there has emerged talk of the establishment of an
independent constitutional commission, which I support because
it's a very rational choice to settle the amendment process.

Second, lobbying among the political elite has on earlier
occasions led to an agreement to avoid deadlock.

Q: So what are the main constraints in this MPR session?

A: The most worrying factor is the fact that some parties are
taking particular articles in the Constitution hostage (to
achieve their interests). The Regional Representatives' faction
has taken Article 31 and Article 16 hostage in a bid to maintain
their existence at the Assembly.

Islamic-oriented political parties have taken Article 29
hostage (to try to change it to enable the adoption of sharia for
Muslims) in a bid to make nationalist parties lower their
bargaining position regarding the second round of the direct
presidential elections. This is what could lead to a deadlock in
the session.

However, this is only part of the game theory that the parties
are playing -- trying to maximize their own interests by
minimizing other parties' interests. This is what we can expect
during these 10 days (of the Annual Session until Aug. 10).
Politicians are always buying time.

(Current developments) may look like the makings of a deadlock
that could lead to a constitutional crisis and a return to the
1945 Constitution. Yet, if we observe how politics is conducted
in Indonesia, you should not worry. An agreement among the top
figures of the parties has already been made.

Last year's MPR session was an example of how a crucial
situation on the last day of the session could be resolved thanks
to a short informal meeting among top party leaders; an agreement
was reached in the last minutes of the session. On this occasion,
an agreement has been made even before the session has begun.

Q: Could you elaborate on the conditions prior to the issuance of
the July 5, 1959 Presidential Decree?

A: It was the Konstituante, an institution that had the task of
drawing up the Constitution, which was dismissed by then
president Sukarno.

Some regions were trying to break away from the republic as a
result of the government's incompetence in handling problems. The
military was also very actively involved in politics, not to
mention the intense confrontation between political parties. Top
party leaders were competing to get close to the president. They
refused to compromise, especially regarding state ideology and
the Jakarta Charter (which includes the statement that Muslims
should practice their religion according to their teachings,
taken to mean the adoption of sharia).

We can still avoid such a crisis. Just look at the repeated
statements of MPR Speaker Amien Rais regarding, for example
Article 29. He said he would try to discuss various alternatives.
If the parties refused to adopt one, there's no reason to not
return to the original formulation.

So (the apparent threat to return to the 1945 Constitution) is
not a final price that cannot be bargained. It's just an
experiment (to get the best that the parties can bargain for).

Q: The Indonesian Military (TNI) and National Police faction
earlier raised a number of options regarding the amendment
process: To return to the 1945 Constitution -- later corrected to
mean to return to original articles if new formulations were not
agreed upon; to set up an independent constitutional commission
and to treat the amended constitution as a transitional one
before such a commission is established...

A: (To return to the 1945 Constitution) would indeed be
ridiculous. It's obvious that the original script (of the
Constitution) was executive heavy. It did not explicitly regulate
human rights and did not clearly state the check-and-balance
mechanism that enables control by political institutions.

Q: The suspicion remains that the TNI's main target is reinstating
the 1945 Constitution. What is your comment on this matter?

A: There are some figures in the TNI, particularly elderly ones,
who feel their achievements have been betrayed -- (the 1959
reinstatement of) the 1945 Constitution.

But there are also many TNI figures who are capable of seeing
that a constitution is not a holy book. It can be adapted
according to developments. But they also want to remind us not to
go too far. They do not want the MPR to act beyond its authority.

So I think (such figures) are trying to remind us to think
more rationally, that according to the previous amendment, this
(amendment process) must be done through a Constitutional Court.

Q: Would demands to return to the old Constitution by TNI be an
effort to restore its existence in politics?

A: Yes, the argument would be that they're needed for national
stability. The best option would be to treat the Constitution as
a transitional constitution while waiting for the establishment
of an independent constitutional commission.

The toughest problem that the MPR is facing is that it has
abolished its own existence by amending Article 1 of the
Constitution regarding its function and position. Therefore, the
key factor for this year's Annual Session is the establishment of
a Constitutional Court.

So the MPR should just focus on this because the amended
article says approval to an amendment to the Constitution can
only be authorized by the courts.

Q: What's the worst possibility should the unamended Constitution be
reinstated?

A: It would cause the restoration of authoritarianism, with the
military as the most triumphant party.