Free poll way to solve political crisis

Following Soeharto's downfall, public debate has centered around the validity of the transfer of power to Vice President B.J. Habibie and the legitimacy of the present government. Political observer J. Soedjati Djiwandono addresses these issues.

JAKARTA (JP): To raise the question of the legitimacy of Habibie's presidency is not mere political wrangling. By contrast, however, constitutional debate on the legality of the transfer of power to Habibie is an irrelevant and worthless exercise.

The circumstances that led to Soeharto's resignation are not provided for in the constitution, or in any other existing legislation.

To the very end, Soeharto never once expressed a readiness or desire to step down. He once said that as a soldier he would never "shirk his responsibility", whatever that meant, but in the end he was forced by circumstances to do so. He finally had no choice but to bow to the continuous pressure of student demonstrations which gave voice to the desires of the masses.

Although there are provisions in the constitution and existing legislation designed to cover the event of the president resigning or becoming incapacitated, the circumstances which they postulate bear no resemblance to the events which unfolded last month. The existing laws and procedures largely cover death in office, not voluntary resignation.

A provision in the constitution does however state that in the event of the president's resignation, he or she shall be replaced by the vice president.

Unfortunately, how the transfer of power should take place is not explained and it is left open to debate whether a simple transfer ceremony is sufficient, or if a special session of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) is actually required to reissue the presidential mandate.

At the heart of the matter is the fact that the President did not resign of his own accord or will, but was in effect forced out by the people.

This makes the problem relating to his resignation political in nature, and not a legal conundrum. Furthermore, it is a political problem in an emergency situation and the need for a swift solution is therefore of paramount importance.

Here we run onto the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, we have demanded total and comprehensive reform of the political system and forced drastic change in the national leadership through somewhat "revolutionary" means, while at the same time calling for greater democracy. A dangerous vicious circle beckons, promising ever greater repetitions of the events of the last few months.

To avoid this, emergency political steps must be taken. The nationwide demand for a special session of the MPR and a fair and free election in the shortest time possible is an expression of democratic aspirations and a determination to adhere to the principles of the 1945 Constitution.

However, to ensure that the MPR is representative of society at large, a shake up in the present membership is required. Some members have already resigned while more must surely follow because of the nepotistic nature of their appointments. Of no lesser significance is the fact that Golkar, the largest and ruling political organization, appears to be disintegrating. The arguments for rejuvenating the MPR membership are therefore very powerful.

There is good reason to doubt if we have either the time or the money to hold an immediate election, because the economic crisis has rapidly gone from bad to worse. But a fair and free election is an internationally accepted and democratic means of solving a political crisis of this nature.

Announcing and executing definite plans to hold an election would go a long way to restoring confidence, both at home and abroad.

Above all, however, a simple announcement by President Habibie or the MPR stating that the current presidency is provisional or transitional in nature is absolutely necessary to reassure our citizens and the international community of the current government's good intentions.

The choice of vice president was a calculated political maneuver on the part of Soeharto, as was the selection of MPR members and those who sit on other representative bodies. His presidency was the lynchpin in the system which the nation is now demanding be totally reformed.

What is so difficult about making such a simple but decisive statement, if President Habibie honestly has no ulterior motive? More than anything else, honesty and humility breed trust and confidence.

An honest and humble admission on the part of the present government would go along way to ensuring that the present crisis will shortly be consigned to history, and this despite the new government having in its ranks a number of political turncoats not entirely free from suspicion of corruption.

We also badly need the confidence of the international community. An emergency rescue operation lead by the international community is perhaps the only way to save the country from collapse. Will our new leaders be honest, modest, and humble enough to admit this sobering fact and swallow their often misplaced national pride?