Constitutional crisis?

Constitutional crisis?

The Second Amendment to the 1945 Constitution, now being
discussed at the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), is
actually a series of alterations to Indonesia's basic law. The
proposed amendment contains as many as 29 items, which if
approved, will expand the 1945 Constitution from the present 37
articles to no less than 76. In contrast, the First Amendment,
passed in October, contained 13 changes, but left the number of
articles essentially intact.

The reform era has broken down the floodgates for the country
to amend the 1945 Constitution, but not to replace it. This is a
document which was enshrined by Indonesia's two successive
dictators who turned it into their most powerful tool to sustain
their power for as long as they did. Sukarno and Soeharto never
hesitated in invoking the Constitution to muzzle, jail or even
murder their political opponents who held different
interpretations of the constitution to their own.

The reform era brought about the realization that the 1945
Constitution, in its original form, contained many weaknesses and
must therefore be amended. The basic law, in its original form,
leaves ample room for interpretation.

Both Sukarno and Soeharto made sure that their interpretations
prevailed for as long as they remained president. They had
neither the incentive nor the interest to amend the 1945
Constitution. This went against the spirit the drafters
themselves showed by making a provision to amend the document
through Article 37. They realized back in 1945, when Indonesia
had only just proclaimed its independence, that a document
hastily put together was bound to have many weaknesses and
imperfections. They never intended the 1945 Constitution to
become a holy book the way many power-hungry politicians have
treated it.

The First Amendment, effected by the MPR in October, had a
clear objective: To clip the powers of the president and provide
a more effective checks and balances mechanism between the
executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. It
was essentially a move to prevent any serving president, once
elected, from becoming a dictator once again.

The objective of the proposed Second Amendment is far less
clear and appears to have been dictated by the narrow self-
interests of the major political parties. The proposal, expected
to be endorsed by the MPR during its current annual session, has
been prepared and debated by a small circle in the MPR, without
going through a single public hearing. While the proposed changes
would further clip the powers of the president, it would also
give the legislative branch even more power.

While empowering the legislative branch vis-a-vis the
executive branch would further minimize chances for a return of
dictatorship, giving the legislature more power than it deserves
could also plunge the nation into a constitutional crisis.

We are already seeing some disturbing signs of this today in
which the legislature, because of its excessive power, can hold
the government hostage. While the House of Representatives does
not have the power to impeach the president, it has the power to
frustrate the government. This is exactly where the nation finds
itself today as the executive and legislative branches are
constantly at each other's throats. The Second Amendment will
only exacerbate the problem, and unless something drastic happens
before then, Indonesia will likely be condemned to this hostage-
taking situation until the next election in 2004.

The 1945 Constitution, even after undergoing the First
Amendment, is still so far from being perfect that few people
could argue against making further changes. But the piecemeal
approach to the amendment, and the strong vested interests that
accompanied the drafting and the debate, call for a complete
review on how the nation should approach the issue. For a
document that affects the lives of more than 210 million people,
the process of constitutional amendment is too precious to be
left entirely in the hands of people whose interests are dictated
by the politics of today.

Instead of endorsing the Second Amendment to the Constitution,
the MPR would do a great service to the nation if it appoints a
new committee of experts that will look at the entire issue, to
overhaul the constitution or even draft a new one if necessary,
which is more in tune with the needs of today. The team should be
free from vested political interests and conduct as many public
hearings as it could in coming up with its proposal.

The team who put together the 1945 Constitution under very
difficult circumstances and conditions 55 years ago shared a
vision for the new republic. They also possessed statesmanship
qualities that overcame their own narrow political interests. If
only today's political leaders could possess that same spirit and
statesmanship, then there would be no reason why they could not
come up with an even better basic law than the 1945 Constitution.