MPR Annual Session 2002: Some crucial issues

MPR Annual Session 2002: Some crucial issues

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Political Analyst, Jakarta

From the outset, this year's Annual Session of the People's
Consultative Assembly (MPR) has been overshadowed by expectations
of a deadlock. The political parties had agreed that they would
avoid such a deadlock -- but may be regarded as a deadlock is yet
to be clearly defined. A complete failure? A partial failure?
What issues should be the criteria?

Such an expectation was strongly expressed by the Indonesian
Military (TNI) Chief Gen. Endriartono Sutarto on the eve of the
opening of the session when he said that the amendment process
had deviated from its original purpose. Indeed, this kind of view
is not a monopoly of the TNI and the Police alone.

At any rate, the General's statement could not but lead to a
controversy on whether he was in position to make such a
statement, in effect dictating to the MPR, the supreme governing
body of the country's political system based on the 1945
Constitution. Gen. Agus Wijoyo, a deputy at the MPR, has defended
the TNI's political position on the ground of its representatives
in the TNI/National Police faction in the MPR. The point is that
Gen. Endriartono is not one of those representatives, and that he
made that political statement outside the MPR forum.

The next statement, however, is that the TNI and the National
Police will support any decision made at the upcoming Annual
Session including the possibility of issuing a decree providing
for the reinstatement of the 1945 Constitution if this was
considered the best choice for the country. Now what would a
return to the 1945 Constitution mean: The original text, or that
including amendments I, II, and III -- already agreed by the MPR?

The next crucial issue is the direct presidential election. A
direct election of the president and vice president in one
ticket, given the general agreement by most factions in the MPR
-- should logically result in the MPR being stripped altogether
of its main functions: To elect the president and vice president,
to determine the outline of state policy, and to hear
accountability reports by the president at the end of his or her
terms.

The process should be reversed. An institution will need to be
established because some function is to be performed, not a
function to be created for institution already established. Thus
the idea of giving the MPR a function to elect the president and
vice president in the second round of a direct election of the
president and vice president in one ticket, in the event that no
candidate wins a majority of over 50 percent in the first round
of the direct election, is a sham -- a pretext to maintain the
existence of the undemocratic MPR.

The legislature should then consist of two separate chambers,
whatever they each are to be called and however they are to be
elected. The two chambers can then have joint sessions, but not
forming a single institution consisting of the legislature (DPR)
and a body of the imaginary functional representatives. The DPR
is like the House of Representatives in the United States, and
the other chamber is similar to the U.S. Senate.

The MPR, the supreme governing body of the political system
under the (unamended) 1945 Constitution, with unlimited powers,
is the most prominent evidence of the undemocratic nature of this
Constitution. It has served only to sustain a dictatorship, under
Sukarno's guided democracy and the Pancasila democracy under
Soeharto's New Order. This is the opportunity to get rid of it.

Reform is a change within and through the existing
constitution; within and through the existing system. We can thus
use the MPR for the benefit of the whole nation, rather than to
sustain some form of a dictatorship. So reform in that sense may
indeed end up with a completely new constitution.

Moreover, all indications point to the transitional nature of
the 1945 Constitution. Without repeating what these historical
and political indications are, one should not be blinded by
rhetoric, made-up logics and false arguments. References to the
founding fathers are just a fallacy of authority in informal
logics, with which many of our political elite do not seem to be
familiar, because few of them ever learn.

Another crucial issue is the more than half-a century old
demand for the inclusion of the sharia into the constitution,
this time through amendment of article 29 rather than into the
preamble as before. This efforts of many Muslims by various means
for long since before the proclamation of independence, if
genuinely out of a religious conviction and dedication to the
whole nation and to humanity, rather than out of political or
power interest, deserve respect and appreciation.

However, if we are all to be committed to the idea of one
nation, then we should bear in mind these factors: In the light
of our diversity in so many things, we can only continue to
remain a united nation if we are bound by common universal human
values. We should be ready to engage in a never-ending process to
find and to develop those common values. Failing in some, we have
to learn to understand and accept those differences.

Secondly, the institution of the state is never established to
implement any particular religious laws and teachings. The state
as a human institution is designed to promote general welfare
(including public order) based on justice for its citizens. If
the state, through its laws and law enforcing agencies, should
punish, say, a thief, it would not be because he or she has
violated a religious law or religious teaching (for the
Christians, for instance, a sin against one of the 10
commandments "Thou shall not steal", but because he or she has
disturbed public order by encroaching on someone else's rights.

In the long term, it would not make an essential difference
whether the MPR annual session this year would eventually agree
to amending article 29. If it does, it would be the beginning, or
perhaps to be more accurate, the continuation of the
disintegration of this nation. If not, then we can expect the
nation to continue to be forever beset by social tension and
worse, social conflicts with all their dire consequences.

Then we can forget about economic recovery, stability and
security. For our nation-state will forever be rocked at its very
foundation. Indeed, it would be a serious question of our
survival as a nation.

What about the next MPR annual session 2003, in the light of
expenses, its agenda, a lack of vision on the part of its members
on where we are really going, their lack of understanding of what
reform or constitutional amendment is all about, and the lack of
understanding of the MPR's own functions? Should the MPR convene
again? It is not even worth a serious answer, except, "You must
be joking!"