DPD's role? Empowering itself ...
The Jakarta Post Jakarta
The dream for better legislative representation appeared to have come true when the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) agreed in 2002 to adopt a bicameral legislative system.
The creation of a new state institution, the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), was seen as a remedy for people's disappointment with politicians who were more concerned with their own short-term interests than with people's aspirations.
Under the system, the DPD, which emulates the U.S. Senate, serves as a kind of Upper House, with the House of Representatives (DPR) as the Lower House. A joint session of both DPD and DPR makes up the MPR, the country's highest legislative body.
The system has been applied in federal states such as the United States and Germany and unitary states like Japan and France.
In the United States, each state is allocated a fixed number of seats in the Senate, regardless the population of that state. This is designed to ensure that smaller states are not overshadowed by more populous ones. Seat allocation in the Congress, on the other hand, is proportional based on population.
The bicameral system, therefore, is a method of combining the principle of democratic equality with the principles of federalism -- all votes are equal in the Lower House, while all states are equal in the Upper House.
In Indonesia, each of the country's 32 provinces has four representatives in the DPD, while seats in the House are allotted proportionately in accordance with the population of each province. Thus, densely populated provinces like East Java and West Java have the most representatives in the House.
All DPD members are directly elected by the people, without any intervention by political parties. The 128 DPD members sworn in last Oct. 1 were directly elected in the April 5 legislative election. As such, it could be said that DPD members have more legitimacy than DPR members, whose election is very much determined by political parties.
Unfortunately, however, the newly-born DPD has fallen short in meeting public expectations. Under existing regulations, the role of the DPD is limited to giving input to the DPR in the deliberation of bills related to regional administration only. In the U.S. by contrast, all bills must pass through both Houses before they become law.
The fact that DPD has only limited power makes it an ineffective body. The DPD has no authority to participate in the law-making process, but it is however allowed to submit bills to the House, especially on issues related to issues of regional autonomy.
In the Constitution and in Law No. 22/2003 concerning the composition of the Assembly, the DPD is reduced to secondary status compared to the House.
DPD members are invited to attend House plenary sessions only to hear the President deliver the draft state budget. The DPD may provide suggestions to the House regarding certain bills relating to the state budget and regional administration. DPD members may submit suggestions, but are not involved in bill deliberations.
As such, the DPD appears to be a powerless institution; a "toothless tiger" unable to fight for people's interests.
The public may have had the hope that the DPD, whose members are not connected to any political party, would function as a counter-balance to the House, whose members often fight only for the interests of their parties.
Driven by the fact that the DPD only has limited power, DPD members have started to campaign for the empowerment of their roles and functions.
A number of experts have recommended that the 128-strong DPD campaign for a constitutional amendment and revision to Law No.22/2003 on the composition of legislative bodies, in order to make it equal with the House.
The now-defunct Constitutional Commission also recommended in its final report that the DPD be given power equal to that of the House to make it a "real bicameral system".
Of course, this process alone will take much time and will act as a distraction for DPD members, leading them to neglect their main duties.