Indonesians unwilling to resolve differences

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?