MPR, interest group still needed in RI

MPR, interest group still needed in RI

Soedijarto, Member, People's Consultative Assembly, Interest
Group Faction, Jakarta State University

After 56 years of independence, comprehension of the history,
culture and aspirations of our founding fathers is waning. A
recent article by intellectual Denny JA, published in a national
newspaper is one such example of a lack of understanding of the
basic concept of our nation state.

Some experts have also said that UUD 1945 is a hastily
formulated product, and therefore could be judged a cumbersome
legal umbrella vis-a-vis latest developments in this reform era.

The Constitution was indeed formulated within a brief period.
But the republic's founders, particularly Sukarno and Mohamad
Hatta, had been seriously considering its contents since at least
1926, through deep reflection in exile.

Therefore, Bung Karno who on Aug. 18, 1945 declared UUD 1945 a
provisional constitution, decreed a return to the first
Constitution, with the support of almost the entire population
and the military on July 5, 1959. This was because the 1950
Constitution, which followed parliamentary democracy, failed to
guarantee a stable democratic government. The Cabinet was quickly
toppled in a matter of months and rebellions arose in various
parts of the country.

The article by Denny states, among other things, that the
annual session of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) in
2001 ended in a "deadlock", because two crucial articles of the
UUD 1945 to be amended which deal with power arrangements were
not finished, and that, the presence of interest group
representatives "is not normal, and is even against the system of
democracy."

The U.S.-educated Denny also wrote, "It is true that the MPR
must represent existing groups in society, but if this is
operationally manifested through the special forum of the
interest group faction, the application is totally mistaken."

The postponed amendment of article 2 on the structure of MPR
membership and the resolution regarding the second stage of the
election of the president and vice president, in the case of no
candidates securing the required votes in the first stage, was
not a failure or even a deadlock.

It was a policy adopted as a normal practice for a
constitutional amendment, which in any country should be done
with great care, not to mention the power arrangement involved.
This delay reflects the spirit of "democracy guided by wisdom of
consultation/representation" as mentioned in the Constitution's
preamble.

In the German Constitution, such amendments can be added only
when the entire population has expressed a desire for it, rather
than just by an institution like the MPR, i.e. Bundesversamlung
(comprising Bundestag or parliament and Bundesraat or federal
council). In the U.S. Constitution, amendments can be a lengthy
process, they must be approved by a 67 percent vote in both
houses of Congress, and ratified by 75 percent of the 50 state
legislatures within seven years of the original proposal.

The view that the interest group faction in the MPR
contradicts democracy raises the question: "Which democracy?"
Systems of democracy are different everywhere. All models claim
to be democratic -- whether they are from the U.S., Britain,
France, Japan, Canada, Iran, Russia or the various countries in
Latin American.

Some of the models can guarantee stable democratic governments
like those in North America and West Europe, while others have
created very unstable governments such as in Latin America.

The presence of the interest group faction in the MPR as an
interpretation of the definition of the MPR as an institution
representing the entire population is, to Denny, a total mistake.

Denny might have only quoted part of Article 2 of UUD 1945 by
writing that the MPR must represent all groups. The basic concept
of a typically Indonesian supreme institution, which in Article 2
paragraph (1) of UUD 1945 reads: "The MPR shall comprise members
of the House of Representatives, combined with representatives
from regions and groups pursuant to provisions stipulated by
law," is elucidated as follows: "It is intended that all the
people, all groups and all regions will be represented in the
Assembly so that the Assembly can be truly considered a
manifestation of the population."

The composition of these three elements in the MPR to
represent all the people, regions and groups was the idea of the
republic's founders. They apparently wanted to avoid any
repetition of the West's political history until the outbreak of
World War II.

In practice, the political parties could not rid themselves of
the influence of major investors, economic authorities and
syndicate interests. In the practice of legislation, such
interests carried a lot of clout.

The interests of what the founders called "groups", like
cooperative bodies, labor unions and other collective
associations lacking the power of capital, were ignored. It
appears that their visionary view remains relevant to political
life in the post-modern era.

The interest group representatives including that of
cooperatives, workers, teachers, farmers, fishermen, isolated
tribes, veterans, ulemas, journalists, women and the
military/police, are frequently neglected.

Therefore, our founding fathers deemed it necessary to have
these groups represented in the state institution, authorized to
formulate and amend the constitution, draw up the state policy
guidelines and elect the president. But the interest groups were
not to be involved in the legislation process and other practical
politics, like general elections, budgeting and direct
supervision of public administration.

In the New Order era, the interest group faction was abused by
those in power to dominate the MPR with delegates totaling 100 of
the assembly's 500 appointed members.

In its extreme form, a daughter of the military commander,
children of the president and wives of officials were included in
the faction, because all faction members were part of Golkar -- a
political force then playing a political role but denying its
political party status.

In this reform period, interest group faction members come
from organizations, which select their representatives for
further approval by the general elections committee and
appointment by the president.

Although their recruitment method is now better than in the
previous era, it still needs improvement. One way is to have
candidates selected by the House. Yet the participation of the
disadvantaged groups in the political process of the state, as
expressed by the founding fathers, is very wise, and should be
accommodated by the MPR.

The delayed decision concerning the MPR structure was based on
the sense of responsibility to history. Likewise, Britain has
preserved its House of Lords and Canada its appointed members of
the Sovereign of Canada in addition to the House of Commons in
both countries.