Constitution allows early nomination of leaders

Debating when is the right time to discuss presidential candidates may be a non-issue in many countries but it is a current controversy in Indonesia. Political scientist Amien Rais of Yogyakarta-based Gadjah Mada University and chairman of the influential Muhammadiyah recently discussed this with The Jakarta Post.

Question: What are your thoughts on the current controversy over whether or not we should discuss presidential candidates now or only when the People's Consultative Assembly convenes in March 1998?

Answer: My impression is that we are exercising democracy at a very slow pace. One indication of this is that we still eschew openness which is one of the most important principles of democracy.

This principle guarantees the people's right of freedom of expression. Political transparency, the right to air one's opinions and an insistence that people's aspirations are properly addressed, are imperative.

What I see here, on the contrary, is nothing but pretexts to postpone the application of these principles.

Identifying presidential as well as vice presidential candidates is, in fact, very legitimate, very democratic, and very ethical.

Q: Some argue that such practices are in discord with Indonesian culture.

A: Culture is very subjective. It's something that is very difficult to define. That's why this pretext is often used by certain power holders to stifle their political rivals.

Q: How should we define the Indonesian political culture?

A: Our political culture is very clear, indeed. We, for example, have freedom of speech. Yet, this freedom excludes the freedom to insult others or to look down upon other groups. As long as we speak the truth and state it clearly, it's ethical. In fact, it doesn't sound reasonable to label this behavior as contrary to our culture. Whose culture are they talking about? Doing so is only halting the process of democracy.

Q: You said that it's very difficult to define the culture of a nation. What do you mean?

A: Social scientists are often inconsistent with their explanations when they are talking about the culture of a nation.

Take the case of Singapore, for example. When it was backward and poor, people who believed in cultural explanation said that it was the Confucian culture which had created that state. When it became very clean, well-developed and prosperous, on the other hand, these same people said that it was the Confucian culture that made it so.

Cultural explanations, therefore, will often mislead people in their understanding of a given problem.

Q: Are you saying that it's not appropriate to use cultural explanations in the debate over when it is the right time to discuss vice presidential candidates?

A: That's right. Let us refer to the Constitution. There are rules of the game we can refer to. People have the right to express their aspirations in as free a manner as possible as long as it doesn't insult or hurt other people.

In this case, people can make use of the mass media, both printed and electronic, to express their wishes. By doing so, such an important thing like electing a president and vice president will not be limited to only one institution, such as the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), along with all its hasty processes.

If people remain mute while they are waiting for the MPR's convention, which notably takes place in only 10 days, to open the secret ballot box, on the last day to announce the new president and vice president, they will be excluded from this important process.

Q: So it is constitutional to discuss presidential or vice presidential candidates in the media ?

A: Of course. It's very constitutional, as freedom of speech is guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution.

Q: Some say that according to the Indonesian constitutional system, any suggestions or opinions should be passed through the House of Representatives. How do you explain this?

A: There are two democratic mechanisms in our system, formal and informal. The formal mechanism is the House and the MPR. The informal one -- which is no less influential and has a wider scope, is primarily the mass media. It is the fourth estate in a democracy because of its equal position with executive, legislative and judiciary institutions.

It's through the mass media that the people's interests are informally channeled. By so doing, a linkage will be automatically established between the people's interests and the House's. How can all representatives identify their people's aspirations if people are not allowed to express theirs?

Q: Let's say people are free to express their aspirations through the mass media. How can we know that all those expressions are heard and discussed by their representatives in the House?

A: If they really represent the interests of the people, they have to listen to the people. They have to pay very serious attention. Otherwise, they won't have the rights to claim that they are the people's representatives. (swa)