Nation needs fresh elections soon

By T. Mulya Lubis

JAKARTA (JP): Waves of student demonstrations helped force Soeharto to resign, but the demands for reinstatement of the people's sovereignty are still far off the target.

B.J. Habibie's appointment as president does not reflect a manifestation of the people's democracy at all because he was Soeharto's choice.

This was done by virtue of the stipulations of Article 8 of the 1945 Constitution. Moreover, constitutional reasons were put forward by the political elite in circles such as the military, political parties and the functional group Golkar.

In other words, the Habibie government is only an extension of the Soeharto government. Habibie's endeavors to meet part of the reform demands like the release of several political detainees, consent for establishing new labor unions and political parties, are only a gesture which has failed to sever the link between the Habibie and Soeharto governments.

Constitutional reasons presented by some legal experts tend to mislead. The transfer of power from Soeharto to Habibie is indeed based on Article 8 of the 1945 Constitution which reads: "Whenever the President is hampered in carrying out his duty, passes away or is unable to perform his duty, the Vice President replaces the President for the remainder of his term of office."

Is this adequate? The answer is no. If this constitutional reason is followed, the application of Article 8 of the 1945 Constitution shall be followed by the revocation of People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) Decree No. IV/MPR/1998 on the appointment of the president and MPR Decree No. VI/MPR/1998 on the appointment of the vice president.

All this must be done by the MPR through a special session. A new MPR decree that appoints and inaugurates Habibie as the new president must be issued.

Therefore, the argument that Habibie's appointment as president is legally defective is not without basis. If the constitutional rationality is to be used, it should be used consistently, and not in parts just for the purpose of justification.

Can the constitutional reason be used in its entirety. The reply is definitely no. Soeharto's 32-year rule was full of systematic and sometimes brutal constitutional violations.

Therefore, it is highly groundless to speak in a constitutional way in seeking a solution to the current problems of the nation and the state.

Constitutional violations have been widespread since 1974 when a number of newspapers and magazines were banned, then in 1975 when the number of political parties was limited to three and a national consensus was reached on the appointment of MPR members by the president.

Also, the introduction of the "floating mass" system, depolitization, the trade union monopoly and the "control" over professional groups like farmers and fishermen.

Consider also the referendum on the change to the 1945 Constitution which clearly violated Article 37 of the 1945 Constitution. The list of violations is endless.

The short list above shows that the constitutional logic has been exploited for a long time to perpetuate the power system, even though the latter itself is full of violations of the spirit of the Constitution.

It should be remembered that the Constitution is a living document; it must be interpreted in accordance with the development and demands of the time.

Ultimately, the people's voice is decisive, and the people's voice is not in the elegant DPR/MPR building but in the houses, food stalls, mosques, churches and ricefields.

It was the people's voice that was absorbed and trumpeted by the student actions throughout the country. The same voice did not ring a bell to the people's representatives because they are actually representing the parties.

DPR/MPR regulations render them invalid to represent the people.

It is in this context that we should not surrender to the constitutional reason because it forecloses total reform. That is why we cannot entrust the reform to those who call themselves the people's representatives.

The recent agreement between the President and the DPR/MPR leadership to carry out a special session at the end of the year or at the beginning of next year without a fixed schedule is the most recent example.

This agreement is clearly antireform; it emasculates the demands for reform. The agreement is a pretext to buy time and a political deal with the clear objective to perpetuate power.

This is especially so because the laws on the general election, political parties and the composition of the new MPR, DPR and the provincial legislative councils and the new general election schedule will be discussed in that special session.

There are concerns the elections will take place in 2002. Thus, there is no denying there are an alliance of interests and a marriage of convenience among the political elite to reject or to slow down total reform, especially since a total reform will eliminate the whole political elite now in power.

The people want total reform in the sense there is democracy, the rule of law, human rights and social justice. The country must be led by new leaders who represent the people's aspirations and who are committed to all of the above.

It is in this context that we see the important meaning of a transitional government that can be a presidium or a council consisting of a number of prominent citizens. This presidium or council will bring us to a democratic general election that will give birth to a new, definitive government.

It is ironic to learn the government's reluctance to reject total reform. Constitutional reasons are put forward to delay it. However, if the argument is followed, the change of the laws on the political parties and the functional group Golkar, the general election and the composition of the MPR, DPR and provincial legislatures can be made immediately in the form of a government regulation in lieu of law.

In one month's time such a regulation can be made, and we can prepare a general election.

Through MPR Decree No. V/MPR/1998, the president can decide that in order to "safeguard and maintain the unity of the nation and to prevent and to overcome social upheavals ...", and without changing MPR Decree No. II/MPR/1998 that has scheduled the next general election for 2002, we can hold a general election at the end of this year or at the latest in one year's time.

Is the "special authority" not given to the president? It is a challenge for the president if he really wants to carry out total reform.

The economic and political crisis has gone on for too long. The wheels of the economy have come to a halt and we are on the brink of destruction with no equal in history. It is not impossible that famine will strike. Time is running out.

The only way out from this nightmare scenario is to restore the trust of the community and the investors in the government. That can only take place by establishing a new government that is not linked to the former government.

The writer is a member of Forum Demokrasi working group.