Lessons in the past of a new constitution

Lessons in the past of a new constitution

By Lambert Giebels

This is the second of two articles on the inception of
Indonesian Constitution.

BREDA, The Netherlands (JP): The 1945 Constitution embodies
some elements of fascism and needs to be revised to meet public
demands for political reform.

The kind of fascism in the Constitution can be interpreted in
fascism's original form, symbolized by the fasces (the ancient
Roman symbol of authority: a bundle of rods tied around an ax).
The ax symbolizes the principle of leadership, embodied in the
all-powerful president, while the rods are the corporative organs
of state. The People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) is made up of
members of the House of Representatives (DPR), "augmented by
representatives of the territories and social groups". The DPR is
now dominated by Golkar, a combination of functionary groups.

Finally, a typically Indonesian element can be found in the
full name of the MPR: Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat. Hidden in
the word permusyawaratan is the time-honored tradition from
Indonesian villages musyawarah untuk mufakat, or deliberation to
reach a consensus.

Sukarno, a fervent advocate of this consensus principle, was
afraid that the 50 percent-plus-one principle of Western
democracy would lead to a tyranny of the majority.

Therefore, deliberation is sought until general agreement is
reached. If such a consensus cannot be reached, it is considered
a defeat in Indonesian culture. Should taking a certain decision
be urgently required, voting will take place in the MPR and the
DPR. Preference is given to the withdrawal of a proposal,
however.

The presidential system under the Constitution was proposed by
Sutan Sjahrir, a social democrat. Under the Constitution, the
Central Indonesian National Committee (KNIP) advises the
president if the MPR has yet to be formed. In October 1945,
Sjahrir saw to it that KNIP was reshaped into a parliament
consisting of representatives of the political parties, and that
the cabinet and ministers became responsible to it. After this
intervention, he himself became the prime minister of a new
cabinet. This reorganization from a presidential to a
parliamentary system was maintained until 1950.

After the transfer of sovereignty on Dec. 27, 1949, the
Netherlands imposed a federal constitution on Indonesia. This
constitution laid the foundation for a United States of
Indonesia, which was to be tied to the Kingdom of the Netherlands
through a union. This constitution lasted for only eight months.
The republicans considered a federal system, consisting of 16
member states, as a disguised form of a tactic to divide and
rule. Soon, one after another, member states joined the republic.
On Aug. 17, Sukarno proclaimed a united state of Indonesia. Soon
after, a centralist state was formed where power emanated from
Jakarta and decentralization was hardly heard of.

The new constitution of 1950 annulled the federal system but
maintained a parliamentary system. However, a disintegration of
the country's parties totally destabilized the political
situation in the 1950s. Cabinets often lasted only a few months.
Sukarno, reduced to a ceremonial figure by the constitution (like
the president of the German federal state), took charge. On July
5, 1959, he announced the adoption of Guided Democracy and
restored the 1945 Constitution.

During 1966 and 1967, Sukarno was pushed out of the presidency
by Soeharto. Two of Sukarno's legacies have, however, been kept
up until today: Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution.

It is likely that in the near future, a committee will be
appointed and assigned to propose constitutional amendments for
deliberation in the MPR. Besides student leaders, elderly figures
from the 1945 generation involved in the struggle for
independence should be appointed to such a committee. No doubt,
Moslem leaders will be included as well.

Issues concerning the drafting of the original constitution
will no doubt return. Many students seem to want a multiparty
democratic system, based on the Western model. The elderly,
remembering the failures of the 1950s, may very well argue for
the corporatism expounded in the existing Constitution.

It is not impossible that Moslem leaders in the committee may
want to breathe new life into the statements on Islam in the
Jakarta Charter.

Another possibility could be that somebody might use the old
idea of a Greater Indonesia as an argument to continue the
integration of East Timor.

Representatives from outside Java may bring the old federal
system forward again, maintaining that a federal Indonesia would
be the right answer to separatist movements, such as those in
Aceh and Irian Jaya.

For the future of Indonesia, two other issues are of no less
importance. The first is whether the country can finally succeed
in finding ways to realize the fifth principle in Sukarno's
version of Pancasila: social justice. The realization of social
justice, as it has taken place in Western democracies, means part
of the yield of economic growth is returned to the people. Should
Indonesia address this in its development, it would be genuine
reform indeed.

The second issue has become a hot topic again after the recent
riots, in which small-scale Chinese-Indonesian shop owners became
the most targeted. The 1945 Constitution has denied full-scale
citizenship to the millions of ethnic Chinese who were born and
bred in Indonesia.

What will be the result constitutional reform? If the MPR, in
its decision-making process, adheres to the musyawarah
(consensus) principle, the result might be a convergence of these
many ideas.

The writer is a Dutch historian who is now in the process of
writing a biography on the life of Indonesia's first president,
Sukarno, to be published by the end of next year.