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.