Consultation matters

The government should be commended for its handling of the economic crisis. It has literally bent over backwards in trying to fix the crisis, negotiating with the International Monetary Fund, securing nearly US$40 billion in aid, intervening in the currency market, working out a new deregulation package, closing a number of insolvent banks, and bailing out small depositors and helping out displaced bank employees.

But as the rest of the nation waits -- with anticipation if not in disquiet -- for each next government move, there is a nagging question about this whole show: the government has been going it alone. There has been little, if any, public consultation as it introduces one measure to the next. The House of Representatives, and therefore the people it is supposed to represent, have been virtually sidelined from all of these efforts as the government deals with the crisis.

Very few of us doubt the sincerity of the government's intention, and, judging from the positive reactions in the currency and stock markets this past week, even fewer would question the measures that have been taken. With few exceptions -- such as the Bank Andromeda's lawsuit against the Ministry of Finance at the Jakarta State Administrative Court -- the general response to the government's measures, at home and abroad, has been very positive.

But that still does not excuse us from doing away with the process of public consultation, an essential element in democracy. This is a crisis that the government cannot, and must not, handle alone. Public participation in the government's decision-making processes is even more imperative at times like these. With the economy now heading towards a recession, people will soon be asked to make many sacrifices. They are more likely to accept the bitter pills prescribed by the government if they are involved in the process from the very beginning.

Since the monetary crisis began in July, we can recall only one instance when the government consulted the House: by Minister of Finance Mar'ie Muhammad on Sept. 16 prior to his announcement to postpone dozens of costly government projects. That decision won immediate House support. Opposition eventually came from within government agencies affected, and some of the projects shelved have since been revived because of powerful vested interests.

We can think of many other measures that should be, or should have been, subjected to consultation with the House since then. The deal with the IMF is one. Some of the IMF's tough terms -- like ending the fuel subsidy -- would deeply hurt the poor. The government's decision to spend Rp 2.3 trillion on depositors of the liquidated banks, and to pay for the salaries and severance pay of staff of the closed banks, should also be subject to the House's scrutiny. Even if the money comes from fresh foreign loans, and not out of the state budget, taxpayers should be informed because they are the ones who will have to pay off the loans eventually.

The House, which has just been installed on Oct. 1, has been watching almost idly, never once questioning the constitutionality of the government's measures. This is happening even as the honorary members were debating about the need for a stronger and more effective House, vis-a-vis the executive branch.

Given Golkar's huge majority and its backing from the Armed Forces faction, the government can always count on the strong support of the legislative branch. There is no doubt the latest economic measures would have been swiftly passed and endorsed with little opposition had they been brought before the House.

This may appear to be a mere formality, but the least that the administration should do is to respect the process of consultation as required by the present political system, irrespective of all its shortcomings and imperfections. It would be as good a way as any to start toward a more democratic life.