Entry point to constitutional change

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.