Indonesians unwilling to resolve differences

Indonesia has lurched into democracy with all the confusion entailed. Political analyst J. Soedjati Djiwandono writes about a few valuable lessons to be learned from the experience.

JAKARTA (JP): Since the general election, a few lessons concerning further reform have emerged. The People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) has recommended that a number of amendments be made to the Constitution. But the aspirations of the majority of the people as expressed through the elections are not entirely reflected in these changes.

Megawati Soekarnoputri's Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) won the most votes in the election. Yet Amien Rais of the National Mandate Party (PAN) was made MPR speaker, and Akbar Tandjung of the Golkar Party, the runner-up of the election, was made speaker of the House of Representatives (DPR). If Megawati should lose the presidential election, how will the people interpret this?

In the meantime the issue of the presidential election has remained controversial, full of uncertainty and marked by horse trading, changing and confusing coalitions, which may well encourage social conflict. It has even been suggested that an alternative candidate from outside the political parties be nominated as a compromise. This would be a mockery of the election and thus of democracy.

Therefore, in the future the people should directly elect the president. This may indeed require a rather complicated electoral system with a number of presidential candidates due to the great number of political parties. But there is a price to pay for every choice.

The first implication would be that it would no longer be necessary for the MPR to elect a president. Second, there would be no need for an outline of State Policy Guidelines (GBHN); for guidelines would be included in each presidential candidate's platform presented to the electorate. This in itself would render the MPR unnecessary. It is an institution that does not contribute to the process of democratization.

The presidential accountability report to the MPR at the end of his term of office would also be unnecessary. To some, the presence of President B.J. Habibie at the MPR session while the 11 factions gave their responses to his report and his reply to their responses in the following plenary session may be seen as progress.

To me, however, the whole episode has been a joke. Why in the first place did members of the MPR get involved in a debate with the President on old policies -- at the end of his presidential term of office -- which have been implemented, and which might already have had dire consequences for the people?

Why didn't they question those policies at their stages of planning and implementation, and thereafter for evaluation?

The President's report of accountability would also be worthless. If a president runs for reelection, whether or not the people accept his past policies would be clearly indicated by whether or not he was reelected.

Another implication is that the people should separately elect members of the legislature. And in lieu of the MPR, we can elect a DPR on the basis of constituencies, and a second chamber (like the American Senate) to represent the provinces, say, two representatives from each province, to be contested by the political parties. In this second chamber, there should be no more appointed representatives of the "interest groups".

Then it would be necessary to regulate the rights and tasks of the different state institutions and their relationships to one another based on the principle of the separation of powers between the legislative, the executive and judicial branches of government. In that way, a system of checks and balances would be created.

For such sweeping reform of the entire political system, however, members of the present MPR must be able to reform themselves in terms of their way of thinking and their mental attitude. I know reform is a long process. The whole process could span generations. And to work for democracy is a never- ending process. But a least we can start to think about it now.

Why should people be afraid of changing the 1945 Constitution, which has proved capable of only sustaining a system of dictatorship, under the names of "guided democracy" and "Pancasila democracy"? The root of that kind of aversion to constitutional changes, I believe, is a fear of changing the preamble of the 1945 Constitution, which contains the five tenets of Pancasila. And the most controversial is the first tenet, belief in one God, which is an expression of, or at least relates to, religious freedom.

Though rarely openly admitted, Indonesians still differ in understanding the meaning and implications of religious freedom. And in an attempt to conceal differences in a number of sensitive issues, Indonesians have resorted to a style of expression that American scholar William Liddle calls "in-betweenness" or "incompleteness", that is, "neither this nor that" expression, peculiar Indonesian ambivalence.

The fear of changing the preamble to the Constitution reflects the fear of revealing such differences that people are either unable or unwilling to resolve once and for all, and hence the fear of changing Pancasila. To me, to work for democracy is to work for Pancasila. The problem is, do we Indonesians have a common and correct understanding of democracy?