Entry point to constitutional change

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Political Analyst, Jakarta

A great number of issues are likely to be on the agenda of the upcoming Annual Session of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR). Most probably short of efforts at a change of government, but for a better performance of the government in the light of President Megawati Soekarnoputri's "progress report".

Apart from a less fundamental question of the formation of the regional representatives faction, there may be a more important issue of better communication between members of the government and the legislators, among members of the government itself, among members of the Cabinet and the President, and between the President and the legislators, particularly various political faction leaders in the interest of a better running of government in the days ahead.

In the interest of the nation over the long term, however, no question seems to be more important than that of further constitutional amendments. Unfortunately, though never said explicitly, "constitutional change" is taboo in this country. The most people can tolerate is the term "amendment". It's amazing how Indonesians are so crazy about symbols. It's beyond reason, beyond comprehension.

This has been part of the success of New Order indoctrination. So many people, including politicians and intellectuals, pay lip service with particular words and phrases, even if they do not really know what they mean, nor care what they mean. Perhaps they fear, unconsciously, that failing to use them they may be considered unnationalistic, unpatriotic, revolutionary, or worst of all, "un-Indonesian". Shakespeare's words, "What's in a name" does not strike a chord among Indonesians.

Whatever amendments have been made so far to the 1945 Constitution have not really touched the fundamental defects of the Constitution: the establishment of an institution with unlimited power (the MPR), the absence of the separation of powers among the three branches of government, and the absence of mechanism for judicial review.

One issue already debated widely, however, has been the possibility of the adoption of a system for a direct election of the president. Whatever their diverse motives, a direct presidential election would make it possible for us to do away with the MPR. Those who agree to a direct election of the president while maintaining the continued existence of the MPR simply do not know what they are talking about.

With a direct election of the president, we certainly will have no need for an institution to elect the president and vice president; to determine the State Policy Guidelines (GBHN); and to which the president is to give his or her accountability reports. Candidates for president and for vice president may or may not form one ticket in the election. That is a choice we can make.

However, candidates for president would have to present their own political platforms (to substitute the GBHN); and they would have to uphold the constitution -- not the "1945" Constitution -- rather than be accountable to any institution as the MPR, which shall "fully implement the sovereignty of the people".

To be sure, as a consequence, we may have to resort to a bicameral system of representation, one representing the regions (provinces), the other directly representing the people. In consequence, we may have to adopt a single-member constituency. It would take time to establish electoral constituencies, which would be necessary to be different from administrative districts. However, all these amendments may not possibly be made simultaneously. Nevertheless, they may be put in an agenda over some period of time.

It seems clear, however, that an amendment to the 1945 Constitution relating to a direct election of the president and vice president may indeed be the right point of entry to constitutional change we need so badly. We may continue to call the new constitution the 1945 Constitution if we will, with the understanding that it has been (drastically) amended, but without feeling that we have "betrayed" our founding fathers, or our proclamation of independence; or that we have "changed" our constitution, if that should be sacrosanct.

It is our own choice, whether we want to work toward modernity or complacently engage ourselves in self-delusion and get nowhere, and ultimately perish as a nation.