MPR Annual Session not worth a damn

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, The Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta

This year's Annual Session of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) shows more clearly than ever the absurdity of the existence of that almighty state institution, supposedly the supreme governing body of the Indonesian system of government. Judging by its results, the Annual Session was just a waste of time and resources.

As was clear this year, its members did not seem to attach much importance to it. A large majority of them - more than half - stayed away from its various sessions. Almost every time a member spoke at the rostrum, always starting with banal traditional greetings and carrying on with lengthy, mostly meaningless statements, one would see on TV the familiar scene of empty seats (except at the opening and closing plenary sessions). Some members were seen dozing and heard snoring; some others were reading newspapers or flicking through its pages; some chatted or whispered with one another; others were busy with their mobile phones; the rest just looked blank.

The power of control and supervision over the executive branch of government is, by the Constitution, entrusted to the House of Representatives (DPR), whose members comprise over two thirds of the MPR membership. And yet, now not only the President, but also all high state institutions, were to give their respective annual reports to the supreme state institution in the country, as though it did not have enough to do to occupy itself already. Or does it just not trust the DPR?

Worse still, the quality of the debate left much to be desired, although one subject was supposed to be of great significance. This was the question of further substantial amendments to the Constitution, particularly one that I had thought could ultimately lead to constitutional change. However, it seems clear that few, if any, of the politicians, for whatever reason, seemed interested in a complete change of the 1945 Constitution. On the contrary, the name of the Constitution has even been further institutionalized.

Speaking about the possible role of the MPR in electing the president in the event that no candidate wins more than 50 percent of the votes in a direct presidential election in the first round of voting only revealed their distorted minds and crooked logic. It presumes the continued existence of the MPR in spite of a direct election of the president by the people. It indicates the lack of genuine concern over the future of the nation.

Furthermore, the continuous debate on whether or not and when the so-called functional representatives - which are ill-defined and after all are not to be elected by the people but appointed to the MPR - are to form their own faction is absolutely senseless and useless. We should abolish this vague representation in all state institutions in the future.

Most ridiculous of all, the MPR took it upon itself the right to formulate a vision of the future of Indonesia for the people, who should be left to build their own common vision of their future. They themselves, through a proper democratic process, should realize this eventually. This would create a bottom-up process to substitute for the top-down process that has been institutionalized by the New Order regime. Moreover, the future rightly belongs to the younger generation, not to the present generation, many of whom may not even be around when the year 2020 comes, let alone beyond.

Indeed, in a way it is good that the session failed to reach agreement on the third constitutional amendment. The present generation of leaders and politicians cannot be relied on to carry on the process of genuine reform. They are unwilling and unable to reform themselves, perhaps because of their vested interests.

It is doubtful whether many of them are intellectually competent and knowledgeable enough to know the proper direction and aim of reform. The "political education" of many of them was not much more that two periods of "political indoctrination", under founding president Sukarno and still longer and more intensive under former president Soeharto. Sukarno was at least more honest in calling it "indoctrination", while Soeharto used a euphemism that I loathe even to mention.

Remnants of such political education can still be seen among politicians and even "intellectuals" in their wordy and complicated manner of speaking, which most people find difficult to understand and a way of thinking that is very hard to follow. Many of the concepts and terminologies are beyond comprehension, yet are often held sacrosanct (such as Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, particularly its preamble) and patterns of attitude as well as behavior that have become part of "Indonesian culture".

Those kinds of people tend to be very resistant to change, hence their aversion to constitutional change. Few of them realize the current crisis is partly due to our fundamentally defective constitution that is vulnerable to manipulation. They do not really mean, or even understand when they speak of "total reform" in all fields. It was not even them that initiated the reform movement - which led to the crumbling of the New Order - but the young university students. Yet, they are now so pretentious as to build a vision of the future for the young generation. How ironic!

Before they speak and carry on the process of "reform", the present generation of politicians should reform themselves, first in the sense that they should liberate themselves from their bad and incomprehensible manner of speaking; they should learn to express themselves better; get rid of certain patterns of attitude and behavior; liberate themselves from aversion to change; stop regarding certain things as "sacrosanct".

They should not be averse to lessons from other nations, particularly those with years of experience in a working democracy. Indeed, a number went overseas for "comparative studies" shortly after their election to the assembly (reportedly bringing their wives along). I doubt if they learned much or anything at all.