Indonesian democratization progress seen in MPR session

Indonesian democratization progress seen in MPR session

The first annual session ever held by the People's Consultative
Assembly (MPR) ended last week. State administration expert Moh.
Mahfud M.D. of the Yogyakarta-based Indonesian Islamic University
shared his evaluations.

Question: What are your evaluations of the Annual Session?

Mahfud: I think I saw some progress there and it was good for
the democratization process. A democratic climate, too, emerged
during the session. Everybody was free to speak out and have open
discussions. Nothing is considered taboo now.

Yet, based on what resulted, the Assembly has not only made
some progress but has caused some setbacks as well.

Can you give some examples?

Among the progress were the MPR's decisions on the source of
law and order and on the amendments to the Constitution.

Marking the setback was the fact that most of the MPR members
put their own personal and group interests above the interests of
the people. Deliberations on some good issues on constitutional
amendments, therefore, had to be delayed because they did not
agree on the alternatives that had been prepared by a
subcommittee. They failed to make decisions on procedures for the
election of a president, and on the authority of the minister of
justice, the MPR and regional legislatures.

I see that the MPR's decision to allow the political
participation of the Indonesian Military (TNI) and the National
Police as a setback because it was contradictory to the reform
idea. That means that a conservative or new status quo group has
emerged in the Assembly and proreform groups have lost.

I, therefore, suggest that there should be no compromise in
the future. If people do not want TNI and the police to interfere
in politics, MPR members should make decisions on the matter
through voting.

How could they fail to make those decisions?

It seems to me that there was some intention of doing that. I
can say so because I was a member of the expert team for the
sessions of Commission A of the Assembly.

When they discussed particular issues, for example, they spent
hours just talking about technical matters. Therefore, when the
time came to discuss the real substance, they ran out of time. As
a result, they could only reach agreements on light things such
as citizenship and the national flag.

What about the legislators, did you see some progress in them
also?

No, I did not. The progress I saw was only on the emergence of
a democratic climate. The legislators are still power-oriented.
The most important thing that the nation needs presently is an
improvement in state administration through the amendment of the
Constitution. Yet, for days they only talked about how to topple
President Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid.

And when Gus Dur came up with an alternative (sharing
governmental tasks with Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri),
the next struggle was focused on how to form the Cabinet. That's
all.

What should we do to produce statesmen than just power-
oriented politicians in the future?

First of all, we need representatives with a strong commitment
to the development of the nation. A district-based general
election can help produce such representatives because it will
allow people to directly elect their own representatives. Under
the proportional system implemented in the past, the election of
representatives was determined by the nomination of political
party leaders and their participation in the financing of
campaign activities.

Do you think the MPR really needs to hold annual sessions in
the coming years?

I think it has to hold annual sessions. Only they don't have
to be so long (The recent annual session lasted from Aug. 7
through Aug. 18). The last session, where the MPR listened to the
government's progress report, taught us that the President could
not play around with the way he managed the country. From the
progress report, too, we found out that although there is not yet
a legal base on which to sanction a president, the MPR could
evaluate the progress report and give directions or make
corrective suggestions to the president. That would lead him to
be careful as the session would be held annually.

Do you think the MPR's task of supervising the government
could be replaced by the House of Representatives (DPR)?

Yes. But we want to empower the MPR. As the highest power
holder in the country, the MPR could issue decisions that could
not be made by the House. That's the basic idea because during
the New Order era, the MPR only held a five-yearly general
session. Now the MPR has proven that it can hold a session
annually. Although some may say it's uneconomical, I'd rather say
it's progress for our state administration. If it's the funding
we're concerned about, we could rearrange it.

How would you describe the amendments the MPR has made?

Discussions in the past annual session were very open and
democratic. Yet, it seems that certain groups were trying to slow
down discussions, so that the Assembly could not finish
deliberations on particular issues or decisions, including the
election of a president.

Who do you think tried to slow down the discussions?

They were groups that were afraid of losing particular things
if decisions were reached. They should not have acted that way.
They should have fought much harder and should not have given up
just for the reason of avoiding voting. Voting is an important
part of democracy and avoiding it only left the work unfinished.
Unfortunately, there was a big group that did not want the voting
to be held.

What should the Assembly do to make its annual sessions more
effective in the coming years?

It should be more economical in the future and discussions
should be made more productive. The Assembly, therefore, should
not bring in issues that will end up being dropped or the
deliberations on which will not reach a decision. (Sri Wahyuni)