'Beware of foot-dragging on Constitution amendment

'Beware of foot-dragging on Constitution amendment

A more democratic 2004 election would require a new election
law, which in turn depends on the ongoing, foot-dragging
amendment to the 1945 Constitution. The slow process is "by
design", says lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis, who is with the Center
for Electoral Reform (CETRO). The following are excerpts from an
interview with The Jakarta Post's Ati Nurbaiti:

Question: Clearly there still is strong resistance toward
amending the Constitution. Your comment?

Answer: The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI
Perjuangan) now even seems to want to stop the process. What PDI
Perjuangan is doing is basically using all means to stay in power
because it does not approve the changes necessary to strengthen
the democratic system. We are now seeing how power tends to
corrupt.

However, there have been positive developments.

The principle of direct presidential elections (which CETRO
and other groups advocate) has been adopted in the earlier
amendment process; but this will not mean anything if the
election law is not revised.

Revision is deliberately being stalled. So the 2004 elections
will remain the same if new laws are not ready.

Another good thing is the amendment that the president is no
longer an "indigenous" citizen, yet discriminatory legal
instruments remain.

The chapter on human rights is still not ideal, but despite
the clause against the retroactive principle (regarding past
human rights violations) it is relatively better compared with
the earlier one. So we have some changes that encourage
democratization.
What other amendments should take place?

We want independent candidates in the legislature and local
councils, and as president and vice president. But how can local
parties join elections while the law says they must have
representatives in at least two thirds of all provinces?

So we're still far from (achieving an ideal constitution). We
are worried about attempts to stop this process by the largest
factions. So our highest call is still an independent commission
on the constitution, given so much backroom dealing.

For instance, regarding direct presidential elections, this is
not possible in a multiparty system, as no party would get more
than 50 percent of the votes. So in the second phase it would
still be the factions in the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR)
that determined the president-elect.

What we have therefore is the sovereignty of the MPR, not of
the people. All these factions now have a joint interest to
maintain the MPR, while the earlier amendment process already
moved towards the end of the need for the MPR, (to be replaced
by) a joint session of the legislature and provincial councils.

Now PDI Perjuangan is even questioning this amendment, saying
this is against the founding fathers' wishes, and that it
threatens the existence of the unitary state of the republic.

No such thing will happen. These kinds of reactionary thoughts
are deliberately being raised again to bring us back to the old
political environment. In (studying) the Constitution's history I
have never been convinced that the founding fathers intended the
1945 Constitution to be the law of the land -- including (first
president) Sukarno. It was drawn up in such haste.
There is now hardly time to struggle for an ideal constitution.
What can be done to at least strive for some checks and balances?

A stronger government is one that is democratic ... But here,
as there is no opposition, civil society needs to watch this
process. We have no hope of substantial change. Both the
executive and legislative branches can still maneuver around the
amendment regarding a limit on the presidential term (where there
was none before).

(There are) efforts to strengthen state institutions, while we
intended to swing the pendulum back toward a strong civil society
instead.

So all that can be done is to watch out so that the current
process is not killed off. This was evident in the statement of
(PDI Perjuangan secretary-general) Sutjipto, who said that the
party did not want changes to the Constitution. Many in NGOs have
wanted to give up and ignore the process, but I've said that
cannot be, even if we don't agree with (the legislators).

We must still call for a constitutional court, a right to
exist for local parties, the implementation of direct
presidential elections and independent candidates.
You said you plan to meet MPR Speaker Amien Rais. What's your
objective?

Amien Rais was in the forefront of the reform movement, and
was highly critical on the repressive nature of the 1945
Constitution. So he should be in the forefront of advocacy for an
independent commission.