Constitution not specific on presidential term

Constitution not specific on presidential term

By Sri Wahyuni

YOGYAKARTA (JP): To limit or not to limit? This question has
caused political and legal experts to lock horns following a
minister's recent remark that Indonesia needs to limit a
president's term in office in the post-Soeharto era.

Another question that has arisen is why a politically
sensitive discourse such as this tends to fade away just like
that, rather than make it into the agenda of the People's
Consultative Assembly, the body authorized to elect the president
and vice president.

Constitutional law expert Mahfud M.D. of Yogyakarta Islamic
University talks to The Jakarta Post about the issue, pointing
out that the source of the confusion actually lies within the
1945 Constitution itself.

Question: How do you see the problem?

Answer: From the constitutional law point of view I agree with
Pak Yusril Ihza Mahendra (another constitutional law expert) that
Article 7 of the 1945 Constitution invites two interpretations.

The article says: the president and vice president hold their
posts for five years and can be reelected.

The first interpretation is that the reelection can be done
once only, while the other is the reelection can be done
repeatedly as long as it is held every five years.

Both, grammatically, are correct.

Q: Is that a weakness?

A: It can be considered a weakness as well as a strength (of the
document).

When interpreting such an (ambiguous) article, it is usually
the interpretation of the ruling party that dominates. The
aspiration of any other parties, even the Armed Forces, would not
be accepted. (The ruling political organization) will certainly
prefer the second interpretation, namely that a president can be
reelected repeatedly. This is the weakness.

The strength (of the constitution) can be detected in the
following way. The double-meaning of the article can be seen as
proof of the wisdom of Indonesia's founding fathers. There is the
underlying spirit that every power has to have boundaries. And
yet, if the situation allows, it's acceptable not to impose
limitation. The founding fathers introduced an element of
flexibility in the authority (of the president).

So, there are no wrong interpretations of the constitution.

Q: What does this imply?

A: We need political clarity on which interpretation is to be
chosen, and should be "crystallized" later on into a law. And who
should do this? It's the task of the People's Consultative
Assembly. They have to decide.

It is up to the body to choose either of the interpretations.
But they have to make the decision. This is important in order to
set clear rules in the political game.

Q: Which interpretation do you think is more suitable for the
present situation?

A: Obviously we can do nothing about the present presidential
period. It's not realistic to talk about limiting the term for
Pak Harto. The term "not realistic" does not necessarily mean
"not good".

From an academic point of view... every constitution includes
limitation of power... in terms of time and spheres. The time
limitation is needed, among other reasons, to ensure normal
succession of the political elites and cadre-building process.
Besides... limitless power tends to corrupt, no matter how good
the person who holds the power is.

There's also a theory that says that... whoever holds power
will usually try their hardest never to relinquish it to others.
If they have to do so, they will attempt to have power remaining
in their circle by giving it to insiders.

This is why limitation of power, academically, is important.

Bear in mind, though, that this is an academic point of view.
No real politics can accommodate it. That explains why such
discourses (about presidential term limitation) end up being
discussions on campuses only.

Nevertheless, I'm confident in the near future there will be
many leaders who share the opinion (that there should be a
limitation to presidential term). And the time to put the
question into the agenda for the People's Consultative Assembly
will eventually come. I think we'll find it easier to discuss the
issue after the year of 2003.

Q: Why?

A: Naturally. Soeharto's period is (widely) assumed to conclude
in 2003. Presently, his is still the strongest power. After his
term ends, all the other powers surrounding him will surely
surface.

The ewuh pakewuh (Indonesian culture that makes people
reluctant to express disagreement, and compels them to respect
the power holders until the end) has presently prevented those
powers from emerging.

This culture has prevented new leaders from surfacing.
Everybody tends to justify whatever the incumbent says or does.
This is why I said that people will find it easier to talk about
it (presidential term limitation) after 2003.

Q: Do you mean there's nothing that can be done to answer the
question before 2003?

A: As of now, it depends more on Pak Harto's political will, not
on the People's Consultative Assembly. Regardless of the question
of whether this is good or not, it's our political reality that
"the political energy" is concentrated in his hands.

As long as Pak Harto is still in this position, it will be
difficult to turn something that is beyond his will into a state
decision.

I believe that Pak Harto does not agree with limitation of
presidential term. He has said that the interpretation of Article
7 is that a president can be reelected repeatedly as long as the
people still want him or her.

That's why as long as Pak Harto is the president it will be
difficult to make a decision about presidential term limitation.