Expressing old hopes
Expressing old hopes
One thousand new members of the People's Consultative Assembly
(MPR) and House of Representatives (DPR) will be sworn in today
by the chief justice.
Every five years, when this event takes place, the public
starts asking whether the two legislative bodies, especially the
House, have carried out their constitutional duties as they once
swore to do.
As the MPR, the country's highest law-making body, will only
meet in March, attention has naturally focused on the House. The
scrutiny is justifiable because the new legislators always
promise at the swearing-in ceremony to assume a vigorous role in
the country's political system.
Exactly five years ago today, legislators from both the
government and non-government factions did the same thing.
It is the same old story -- the public has been complaining
again about the legislators' perceived timidity in using their
constitutional rights to voice the people's aspirations. And,
more tragic still, our general election system -- in which the
voters choose a political group rather than a representative --
has left voters in the dark about their position.
More and more people are registering their complaints with the
National Commission on Human Rights instead of the House. If the
situation was the other way around, many of the riots which hit
this country last year could have been avoided.
Some legislators have defended themselves and denied the
accusations, saying they articulated the people's wishes. They
did not just rubber-stamp all the government-sponsored bills but
passed them after long deliberations and sometimes heated
debates.
But debating an issue is not enough. The people expect them to
do more. Although the democratic system has been applied
differently throughout the world, the most generally accepted
standard is that a House of Representatives has to be able to
sponsor its own bills. This has not been the case here during the
last three decades.
This constitutional activity is, in fact, not new here. When
the country experimented with liberal democracy, between 1950 and
1959, the parliament sponsored many bills. Now there are hurdles.
But every five years new legislators promise to work hard to
eliminate the hurdles. To date the House's internal rules, which
have been blamed for its failure to sponsor any bills, are still
there.
A bill proposed by a political faction will be considered only
if it is supported by at least 25 legislators from more than one
faction. In practice it has been highly unworkable. Many years
ago the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) complained that when it
offered a draft law on business competition, the Golkar faction
refused to support the initiative because it did not want to play
second fiddle.
This weakness has allowed the administration to show its
political muscle by issuing more regulations concerning the
people's basic interests, which should be deliberated in the
House.
We have discussed this problem so many times yet we still do
not know when these undemocratic rules will be removed and the
legislators will be able to put the people's interests above all
others. There is no hope of change if the House members sworn in
today are the same as their predecessors.
The same question remains: when will God bless this nation and
allow citizens to see their representatives enjoying their
constitutional rights?
Perhaps, as a noted political observer once put it, there is
no way until a solid middle class emerges in this country. And
this, he said, will not take place in the next 10 years.
One thousand new members of the People's Consultative Assembly
(MPR) and House of Representatives (DPR) will be sworn in today
by the chief justice.
Every five years, when this event takes place, the public
starts asking whether the two legislative bodies, especially the
House, have carried out their constitutional duties as they once
swore to do.
As the MPR, the country's highest law-making body, will only
meet in March, attention has naturally focused on the House. The
scrutiny is justifiable because the new legislators always
promise at the swearing-in ceremony to assume a vigorous role in
the country's political system.
Exactly five years ago today, legislators from both the
government and non-government factions did the same thing.
It is the same old story -- the public has been complaining
again about the legislators' perceived timidity in using their
constitutional rights to voice the people's aspirations. And,
more tragic still, our general election system -- in which the
voters choose a political group rather than a representative --
has left voters in the dark about their position.
More and more people are registering their complaints with the
National Commission on Human Rights instead of the House. If the
situation was the other way around, many of the riots which hit
this country last year could have been avoided.
Some legislators have defended themselves and denied the
accusations, saying they articulated the people's wishes. They
did not just rubber-stamp all the government-sponsored bills but
passed them after long deliberations and sometimes heated
debates.
But debating an issue is not enough. The people expect them to
do more. Although the democratic system has been applied
differently throughout the world, the most generally accepted
standard is that a House of Representatives has to be able to
sponsor its own bills. This has not been the case here during the
last three decades.
This constitutional activity is, in fact, not new here. When
the country experimented with liberal democracy, between 1950 and
1959, the parliament sponsored many bills. Now there are hurdles.
But every five years new legislators promise to work hard to
eliminate the hurdles. To date the House's internal rules, which
have been blamed for its failure to sponsor any bills, are still
there.
A bill proposed by a political faction will be considered only
if it is supported by at least 25 legislators from more than one
faction. In practice it has been highly unworkable. Many years
ago the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) complained that when it
offered a draft law on business competition, the Golkar faction
refused to support the initiative because it did not want to play
second fiddle.
This weakness has allowed the administration to show its
political muscle by issuing more regulations concerning the
people's basic interests, which should be deliberated in the
House.
We have discussed this problem so many times yet we still do
not know when these undemocratic rules will be removed and the
legislators will be able to put the people's interests above all
others. There is no hope of change if the House members sworn in
today are the same as their predecessors.
The same question remains: when will God bless this nation and
allow citizens to see their representatives enjoying their
constitutional rights?
Perhaps, as a noted political observer once put it, there is
no way until a solid middle class emerges in this country. And
this, he said, will not take place in the next 10 years.