House committees needed to measure trust in the President

Legal technicalities aside, the special committees set up by the legislature to investigate recent scandals are needed to help the body measure its trust in the President and the government, lecturer in politics Pratikno of the Yogyakarta-based Gadjah Mada University told The Jakarta Post.

Question: President Abdurrahman Wahid has said the formation of committees to look into "Buloggate" and "Bruneigate" are illegal. Do you agree?

Answer: That rebuttal has instead led to the impression of how nervous the President is in facing continuous "attacks" from the factions in the House of Representatives, and how he hides behind questioning the committees' legality.

His argument is baseless. Why should he question its legality when nowadays even matters which are clearly legal are open to question? Regardless of the result of the committee's planned investigation, corruption would anyway still be pursued by law enforcers.

If there is adequate proof of the President's involvement he must face the court, which the House committee is not a part of.

So the above rebuttal has become counterproductive for the President himself because his burden would be greater along with impressions (following his remarks) that he is involved. And (Minister of Law and Legislation) Yusril Ihza Mahendra did not support his argument either.

So while people remain confused the problem has not really been dealt with, has it?

The House committees are basically the extension of the legislature, so their purpose must be in line with the House' position as a political institution. The house must function as a channel for public aspirations and as an institution to control the government.

The above question of legality becomes inappropriate because the existence of the special committees would be to measure the ability of the President to carry out the State Guidelines (drawn up by the highest body, the People's Consultative Assembly). This will eventually become input for the House and the Assembly (to decide how far) they can increase or decrease their trust in the President or the government.

The truth, according to the law, of whether the President is involved in both scandals would be for the courts to determine.

But in carrying out their control function the House also needs the resources to gather data; it is here that the special committees come in, to make that control function effective.

So we can't expect the committee to answer the mystery of the President's possible involvement in the case?

That's true. The committees' work is political, which entails trust in the presidency, or the President's legitimacy ...

So even if the committee comes up with strong evidence of the President's implication this would not automatically become the basis for impeachment. On the other hand if the findings don't come up with anything this would not mean the President is automatically free from impeachment either.

Take Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky affair.

What the United States Congress did was not aimed at proving allegations, but determining whether the scandal would affect their trust in Clinton.

Only if the courts prove Gus Dur (Abdurrahman) guilty of corruption or any other criminal act would this be the basis of impeachment.

But a number of experts have said the committees are illegal.

Politically the committees are still needed to make the House' function effective. I'm worried that all this furor about the committees will become a bad precedent for the House' function. The investigations by the special committees for "Buloggate" and "Bruneigate" must not stop only because of such technicalities.

On the other hand the House must refrain from setting up committees too easily; it must be more selective and choose cases which have considerable (potential to cause the eroding of the President's legitimacy) or a crisis in public trust toward the President and his government. This is assuming that a democratic government cannot operate without trust or legitimacy.

And the above scandals are among those worthy of such selection?

The selection of the two cases is still debatable. Are those cases really main issues which have led to widespread public distrust toward both the President and the government?

I think ... the main source of domestic and international distrust has been the poor political communication on the part of the government, mainly Gus Dur. His undiplomatic stance toward Singapore lately is one example.

In fact government policy in various areas may be said to have been the best possible decision given the circumstances, but given bad political communication, many policies have been seen as inconsistent and have become the target of criticism ...

One main function of the government nowadays is to facilitate today's changes toward a more predictable situation with some guarantee of political stability.

We also need to look at the House' contribution in this transition to democracy, which depends on all parties to avoid sharpening political conflict.

The spirit of setting up the special committees must not be only seen in the light of revealing the government's faults.

The House must remember that if civil society is to come into being, the public will also exert their control mechanisms on the legislature, among others through parliament watch bodies. (Asip A. Hasani)