House of Representatives is govt partner in making laws

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.