Limit tenure for president

I fully subscribe to the opinion, recently voiced by Minister of Transmigration Siswono Judohusodo, that the tenure of a president in the post-Soeharto era (2003 onward) should be limited to 10 years, i.e. two terms of office.

This does not change article seven of the constitution but it will need the consensus of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) when it convenes in 1998.

The constitution was drawn up in 1945 in an era of physical struggle against the Dutch, who wanted to recolonize Indonesia. The constitution was temporary. It created the opportunity for permanency in the state leadership during that struggle.

Of course, when the situation returned to normal, the brief, binding and unclear articles of the Constitution could be reviewed.

Indonesian people have had the experience of long presidential terms with Sukarno and Soeharto. Continuous power in the hands of one person may give rise to arrogance and abuse which is difficult even for the highest state institutions like the House of Representatives and the State Audit Agency to control.

Just look at the House. Its function to control the president has gradually declined and apparently it is becoming a government tool. This has been caused by regulations made by the House, which is dominated by Golkar and the Armed Forces.

Power held continuously by one person tends to grow stronger and may lead to dictatorship.

The Philippines during president Marcos's reign was an example. The Philippine constitution limits a president's tenure to one term of six years to prevent the type of dictatorship once wielded by president Marcos.

Dictatorship is not necessarily manifested openly, it can be disguised in various forms. There is concern that it will happen in Indonesia.

In the post-Soeharto era, Indonesia's sociopolitical life in the face of globalization will need a more democratic and open form of rule from its president and other high institutions.

There must be easier mutual control. The institutions should pay more attention to the people's welfare. There should be neither arbitrary actions in favor of group and family interests, nor discriminatory and unjust actions.

May this letter receive the attention of the people's representatives at the MPR general session in 1998.

SUHARSONO HADIKUSUMO

Jakarta