House rules not okay

The House of Representatives has finally reached a consensus to review its internal rules and proceedings. These in-house rules have long been the subject of heated debate because many, even those serving in the House, have found them too restrictive and contravening to the principles of democracy. But nothing has been done about them. Now, as the House is about to end its five- year term, the decision has finally been made to change them.

The sudden about-face was virtually forced on the reluctant House following the Indonesian Democratic Party's (PDI) debacle in last month's general election which saw its representation fall from 56 to 11. With only 11 members in the next sitting, which begins in October, PDI, under the current rules, could hold the rest of the House hostage.

This is because decisions must be made based on the support of factions, and not by head counts. With 11 commissions in the House, this means there will be one PDI representative in each of them. If the PDI representative is absent for one reason or another, then the commission cannot even hold a meeting, let alone make a decision.

Underlying the current House rules is the "family" principle, in which any decision must be endorsed by all members of the family, in this case all the four factions. While there is a strong argument to retain this "family" principle, putting it into practice in the House is something else.

The House is a place where different, and often conflicting interests, meet, and hopefully, converge. That is essentially what democracy is all about. The "family" principle, which we hope will characterize our democracy, can only be upheld in spirit, but cannot be forced upon the House, and certainly cannot be made binding through the House's internal rules.

It is interesting to note that House leaders hope to complete the debate about changing the internal rules within a short space of time. Each faction has apparently drafted its own proposal for the changes, some of them dating back to five years ago. It appears that while the factions have all agreed on the need for change, no one, especially the dominant Golkar and the powerful Armed Forces factions, wants to upset the scheme of things.

We recall that the two minority factions, the United Development Party (PPP) and PDI, once attempted to introduce a bill to change the internal rules, but were defeated before it reached the floor, precisely because of the rigid rules. If the rules are indeed changed, then at least something good for democracy has come out of PDI's election misfortunes.

It remains to be seen how far the factions, especially Golkar and the Armed Forces, are willing to change the House rules and proceedings. We hope that these will not be cosmetic changes such as simply reducing the number of commissions. Since there is a consensus to change, the factions should take this rare opportunity to overhaul the system, which is fraught with shortcomings.

Changes are long overdue. The House's image has taken a severe beating in recent years because of its inability to act as an equal partner to the government in the decision-making process. More and more people are turning to alternative institutions, notably the National Commission on Human Rights, to air grievances. The recent violence and rioting was attributed, in part, to the failure of the political system to provide effective outlets for people's aspirations. The rigid rules governing the House are partly to blame.

The best legacy that the current House can give as it ends its five-year term is to restore the institution to its proper role: as a House of Representatives.