House of Representatives is govt partner in making laws

By Wimar Witoelar

JAKARTA (JP): Democracy is a necessity, not an option. Unfortunately, democracy is simple only when you recite the jargon. It becomes extremely complicated when you try to implement it; the devil is in the detail.

For instance, how do we activate the roles of the various institutions? The only political institution that worked in the past was Soeharto.

Now we are faced with boxes and labels with familiar names, but it takes a lot of practice and education to use them. We are used to riding in a bus with one driver, and now we are switching to whitewater rafting where everybody has to lend a hand. Most people just shout at the guide, figuring that free speech is all that democracy means.

It is the job of the President and the government to work, but what is the job of our House of Representatives (DPR)? We have had a mind-stifling experience in past decades watching rubber stamp legislatures that only acted at the instructions of the executive. Most of us rejoiced when the elections produced a DPR that is vocal and critical.

The problem is, we now have what I call a "Pavarotti problem". When people admire Luciano Pavarotti, some people think it is because of the volume and strength of his voice.

So, new singers come on the scene and work their lungs off trying to be as loud as Pavarotti. Some of them do get pretty loud, but with mediocre voices they just damage our eardrums, especially when we listen too closely.

To be vocal is really not to shout at people's mistakes while ignoring their accomplishments. It is infantile to insult everything that comes along. Being critical means being "for" good things as well as "against" bad things. It is necessary to play rough in certain sports, but if you play rough all the time you become just a plain roughneck.

Maybe everything goes back to our past trauma. Things went wrong because people were too quiet and submissive. So we fix that by being loud and contrary. As that seems to sell in some media, the roughriders find their popular support. Even a current popularity poll in a major newspaper showed people go for the loud public figures and not always the useful ones.

As quoted in Newsweek, "It used to be that people who criticized the government were put in jail. Now they are put on television."

Of course all this makes for a lively press, and there is good fun everyday in the political news as politicians try to drown each other with their diatribe. It is, in all seriousness, a positive expression of freedom of speech and empowerment.

Unfortunately, we also have to run the machinery of the nation. Good governance needs a critical public and polity, but constant harassment is not the best environment for policymaking and implementation.

Enough said. As Anne Frank wrote in her diary upon being hounded by Nazi oppressors, "I really believe than deep down inside, people are good at heart."

For the good at heart in the DPR who are really facing an identity crisis, and citizens everywhere, it is time to have some clear guidelines on the roles of various institutions. For sound advice, we turn to the most distinguished constitutional scholar in the country, Professor Dr. Harun Al-Rasyid, whom I had the honor of interviewing a few days ago.

Wimar: What actually is the function of the DPR? They are very active in controlling the government, presenting criticism of the government. Is that their job?

Harun: The DPR is the government's partner in formulating laws, not more and not less. This we see in the fact that the rights entrusted to the DPR are limited to the right to initiate new laws, the right to decline draft laws presented by the president and the right to approve the annual state budget. There are no such rights as the right of interpelation, right of inquiry (enquette) and right of interrogation.

But haven't these rights always been there?

The enquette right is expressed in the 1950 provisional constitution, not in the 1945 constitution which we now use.

These rights show up in the second amendment to the 1945 constitution, with the important note that there is a weakness caused by negligence on the part of the MPR that these two laws have never been activated. So they are not in effect yet.

So what really is the nature of the relationship between the legislative and the executive branch?

We now have the presidential system, a fact that is not always realized by the DPR. In a parliamentary system the DPR would be very strong. With a motion of no confidence, the government could fall at any time. In the presidential system with a defined term of office, it is quite difficult to unseat the government.

What about the mechanism of the Special Session of the MPR?

This is a mechanism to stop a president in mid-term. But actually this is very weak from the legal standpoint, because the provision is only expressed in an MPR "ketetapan" (decision), not in the constitution.

Meanwhile, the existence of the MPR "ketetapan" (decision) as a state regulation is not recognized in the 1945 constitution. Legally speaking this makes the "ketetapan MPR" very weak; in fact I use the term "haram" (religiously forbidden, Ed).

If the MPR wants to legalize its decisions, they should be inserted into the constitution, not left outside. This is the weak point in the impeachment process.

What are the less than positive developments in our democratization process?

The lack of understanding of the most fundamental principle, which is our duty to stabilize our life as a nation and as a people. Our fourth and current President is the first one democratically chosen, in accordance with the constitution. If he were to be terminated in mid-term it would mean we are really immature in our life as a nation and as a people.

It would show a lack of stability in our political processes. Americans elect their president once every four years. We should do it once every five years as stipulated in the constitution.

Finally, and most important in the context of the day. What is the implication if the President is unable to choose any one of the two candidates for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court nominated by the DPR?

It means the DPR must present new nominees. The laws governing the Supreme Court do not oblige the president to choose any of the nominees presented. It is up to the president to accept or to decline.

The writer is a popular talk-show host and political commentator who was last year recruited to be President Abdurrahman Wahid's spokesman.