MPR opposes political reform

By Smita Notosusanto

JAKARTA (JP): All of a sudden, the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) is debating a proposal for direct presidential elections (DPEs) again. The debate gives the impression that the MPR is finally making significant inroads into the amendment of the 1945 Constitution, contrary to public criticism of its poor performance record.

But are these debates really as progressive as they sound? Last year, this proposal was put forward by a group of non- governmental organizations (NGOs), led by the Center for Electoral Reform (Cetro), and became one of the alternatives produced by the MPR Working Committee to be voted on in the MPR's annual session.

However, the MPR never had the time nor political will to even debate any "difficult proposals", such as for DPEs, that could actually reduce their power. Instead, they spent all of their energy on the transfer of presidential authority to the vice president -- ignoring the overwhelming public support for the proposal.

The amendments that they finally passed were not priority initiatives, such as those on the national flag, the national anthem and the country's borders. They also failed to pass other "difficult but crucial" decisions such as the creation of a bicameral parliament with no appointed members and a constitutional process on presidential impeachment.

These issues were supposed to have been prioritized last year so that we should not have had to go through the constitutional confusion experienced over the past year, ending with the impeachment of former president Abdurrahman Wahid. But alas, it did not happen.

All of the proposed alternatives to DPEs debated by the MPR last week have all been debated before last year. Most MPR factions, strongly represented by the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) and the Reform faction, still want the MPR to maintain some kind of role in electing the president and vice president.

PDI Perjuangan proposed that parties nominate presidential candidates and their vice presidential running-mates, and direct elections then be held to elect them. Candidates who gain an absolute majority in votes would be sworn-in as president and his or her running-mate as vice president.

However, if no candidates were able to gain an absolute majority, the MPR would elect a president from the two candidates with the highest number of votes. The Reform faction proposed a reversed process: MPR selects two presidential candidates and then direct presidential elections are held to elect a president from the candidates proposed by the MPR.

A third proposal proposed by the National Awakening Party (PKB) and the United Development Party (PPP) provides no role for the MPR in electing the president and vice president. As expected, support tends to circle around the first two proposals, for obvious reasons: they still allow the MPR to determine the outcome.

We know how this is going to work. Decisions will be made based on short-term factional interests and often through political horse-trading.

The direct DPE system was proposed in order to minimize the role of the MPR, which is in urgent need of an overhaul. If the role of the MPR in electing the president continues to be maintained, the checks and balances between the president, the MPR and House of Representatives (DPR) will not be effective.

It will be difficult for any president to run an effective government if he or she has to constantly satisfy the factional powers in the MPR that elected him or her.

Moreover, the DPE proposal will not be effective in producing a lasting democracy without accompanying amendments to transform the MPR, which has become an increasingly irrelevant body.

The Assembly constantly behaves as if it is the supreme body of the land, with no effective checks upon its power and actions. It rules the country through MPR decrees, which in effect serve the purpose of constitutional interpretation and amendments. This is extremely dangerous for the development of our democracy.

The powers that be in the MPR will not have the political will to make the above proposals because all of them will experience severe repercussions. The team of experts established by the MPR already proposed DPEs with no MPR role back in April of this year. The proposal was rejected by most factions.

This indicates that any body of expertise created to assist the MPR in amending the Constitution will be ineffective if the MPR is still given the authority to tinker with draft amendments and choose proposals that favor their positions.

We have seen this happen before and it would be preposterous for us to allow them to obstruct the Constitutional reform process again.

So here we are, one-and-a-half years later, with the fourth President since 1998, and not an inch closer to any clarity in our system of government.

A new Constitution should immediately be drafted to set the new rules of the game and consolidate the fragile transition toward a lasting and effective democracy in Indonesia. The amendment processes performed by the MPR have been nothing but a patchwork of half-hearted efforts to reform the system.

We should remember that those to be reformed cannot reform themselves. Reform must be implemented by outsiders with no direct interest in maintaining the status quo.

Since it is obvious to many of us that the MPR is one of the most crucial institutions to be reformed, independent actors must propose the needed reforms.

So should we accept this renewed interest by the MPR on the direct presidential elections proposal? I vote no. Create an independent constitutional commission to draft a new Constitution based on extensive public consultation. Once the draft Constitution is concluded, it should be publicized and disseminated to the public before being submitted to the MPR for ratification.

This process is not unconstitutional because it can still be adopted through an amendment to Article 37 of the 1945 Constitution, allowing for the establishment of an independent constitutional commission.

The writer coordinates the Jakarta-based Center for Electoral Reform (Cetro), which is part of a coalition of non-governmental organizations advocating constitutional change.