Challenges and opportunities for the House

Mochtar Buchori, Jakarta

The current internal conflict within the House of Representatives has prompted many people to express concerns and worry about our future as a nation. These concerns do not come only from people outside the House but from current and former legislators as well.

Most of these voices express their strong disapproval regarding the current conduct of House members. There are some voices, however, that along with the criticism also express hope for an eventual improvement in the House, both institutionally and individually on the part of the legislators.

M. Akil Mochtar -- a current member of the House -- said in an interview that "...legislators must improve (their performance) so that they can produce quality legislation." He also charged his colleagues in the House with not being "politically mature". However, he said the present difficulties within the House should be looked upon as a process through which members could acquire political maturity -- a trial by fire, if you like.

Another remark, which is fairly sharp, came from Yayan GH Mulyana of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He wrote that with regards to foreign policy matters the House has shown a "growing self-confidence" which unfortunately is not coupled with "the appropriate know-how and competence in the field of foreign policy." Its activism is also "deficient in traditions and character" -- something that I completely concur with.

A broad and scathing criticism was leveled by Owen Podger, co- author of Government for All People, a recent report for the Asian Development Bank.

In an article in The Jakarta Post on Oct. 30, he virtually accused the old House of being incompetent in revising Law No. 22/1999 on the regional government, which was considered by many as deficient. In his opinion the new law that replaces it, Law No.32/2004, is not any better than the one it is trying to improve. In his opinion, the new law has created as many new problems as it has solved old ones. The quality of the new law is, in his opinion, as bad as that of the old law, i.e. lacking "clarity, consistency, and appropriateness."

What these critics are saying seems to be that our legislators -- and our politicians in general -- have to bring our political system to a higher level of quality. And to this end they have to learn many things. And the essence of these "many things" is, as I understand it, the qualities of statesmanship.

The question now is how to persuade or prompt our legislators toward this act of learning. It can be safely assumed, I think, that most of our legislators will not voluntarily commit themselves to such an undertaking. And if somehow through public pressure they become willing to learn novel and new ideas and concepts, what exactly must they learn? I do not think it right or wise to answer this question on the basis of personal opinion. What is needed here is "public guidance" or "public preferences", if you like.

For the purpose of finding such an answer a small group of former members of the House met recently to discuss this issue. They were joined by an equally small group of non-politicians concerned with the present political situation. In the discussion that followed, three basic reasons were mentioned as the main cause of the present political turmoil.

These are: (1) lack of understanding concerning the gravity of the national situation created by the deadlock; (2) overdependence of individual legislators on the leadership of their respective factions in making political decisions; and (3) lack of technical competence related to issues that arise within the designated field of each commission.

The broad consensus that emerged in this discussion was that better political interaction and cooperation will come only in the House if legislators are willing to develop three things -- technical competence in their respective fields, a working knowlege of political ethics, and a commitment to morality. These three concepts are interrelated.

This kind of technical competence will bring political deliberations on any matter to considerations about ethical standards, to conscious and deliberate considerations concerning the impact of any political decision on the public. This will constitute the beginning of political ethics within the House. And if this is done consistently and continuously, it is reasonable to expect that in the end political morality will emerge within the House.

Another issue discussed in the meeting was about improving the quality of the personal assistants and advisors in the House. The general opinion among the participants was that programs for improving legislators' competence and that of personal assistants should go hand-in-hand. This is because good laws will come only out of deliberations conducted by knowledgeable legislators supported by well-trained technical staff. One of the reasons why laws produced by the House in the past often failed to meet public expectations were that the deliberations conducted prior to the passing of those laws were seldom based on exhaustively researched information. No legislator can carry out such exhaustive research without the help of competent research assistants.

The House has tried to solve this problem in the past. In 2003, if I am not mistaken, every legislator was given the opportunity to hire a personal assistant whose job was to assist the legislator in gathering information related to issues under deliberation. This experiment, however, failed to reach its intended objective. The reason was that many legislators had abused this privilege.

Instead of hiring someone who was really capable, many legislators hired instead members of their family: A son or a daughter, or a son-in-law or daughter-in-law, a brother or sister, or a good friend. Some personal assistants were hired simply for their good looks.

Against this background, it is not surprising that many people wonder whether our legislators are really interested in improving their performance and their quality. It is not surprising either, I think, that many people feel pessimistic about a seeing a better-quality House in the near future.

Let us hope for the best, but let us not lose our hope if things do not proceed to our liking.

As Alexander Dubchek said, "Hope dies last." A nation that does not even have the power to hope is lost.

The writer was a House member for the 1999-2004 period