'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.