New dawn of legislative dictatorship nearing
Muhammad Nafik, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
This year witnessed perhaps the worst political conflict to plague Indonesia in decades, culminating in president Abdurrahman 'Gus Dur' Wahid's removal in July by the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR).
The relatively peaceful transfer of power brought high hopes that his successor Megawati Soekarnoputri would deal swiftly with the nation's problems. However, those hopes seemed to fade over the following months amid continued legal and security uncertainties.
Gus Dur was charged with incompetence and involvement in the theft of Rp 35 billion from the National Logistics Agency (Bulog) and the embezzlement of a US$2 million donation from Brunei's Sultan Hasanah Bolkiah. Despite the absence of a legal verdict establishing his innocence or guilt, the MPR deposed him to satisfy its own political interests. His ousting was a setback for democracy as it was based on political hostility and revenge rather than genuine efforts to foster a democratic system.
It signaled the political dominance of the House of Representatives and the MPR over the president. Legislative dictatorship was never an issue during the 32-year autocratic rule of Soeharto, who stepped down in May 1998 following anti- government protests and mass riots. It also encouraged lawmakers to become arrogant and ignorant of the people's aspirations.
The House "intervenes" in the allocation of executive positions, such as through the appointment and dismissal of top military and police chiefs, the central bank governor and his deputies, as well as ambassadors. During Wahid's presidency, institutional conflicts between the president and the legislature became the order of the day. An example was the House's rejection of then president Gus Dur's decision to sack Gen. Surojo Bimantoro as the National Police chief.
The 1945 Constitution, which contains substantial loopholes and ambiguities, justifies an authoritarian legislative body. That was why Soeharto ruled the country with an iron fist -- to keep the legislature at bay. Until Indonesia creates a new constitution the current legislative dictatorship will be here to stay.
Antonius Suyata, head of the National Ombudsman Commission, says the legislative dominance creates a so-called "powerful supervisor", while at the same time lawmakers neglect their main duty of enacting laws because they are largely focused on watching the government.
If not controlled, he said, the legislature's dominance would open opportunities for law makers to practice wide-scale corruption, while the government remained corrupt. "In the future, it will be harder to overcome this problem because controlling the legislative body is much more difficult than controlling the executive," Suyata added.
The House ignored public criticism over its attention to insubstantial issues that many thought had nothing to do with efforts to lift the country out of its crises. As an example, the MPR Annual Session early last month delayed judgment on several substantial issues, notably postponing final debate on constitutional reforms, including whether there was a need to hold a second round of a direct presidential election in 2004 if no single candidate managed to win more than 50 percent of the vote. Even worse, the nine-day forum that cost Rp 18.5 billion ended with a physical quarrel among legislators struggling for power.
Analysts say the nation's core problem lies with its dubiously democratic system of presidential elections. The surprise ascension of Gus Dur to power in 1999 following the country's most recent general election, despite his low levels of public support, was a clear example of the doubts surrounding the democratic credentials of Indonesia's political system. In a normal democracy, Megawati would have been declared president in 1999 after her Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) won almost 36 percent of the vote. And she should not necessarily have deposed her predecessor, Gus Dur, by allowing bitter political quarrels to heighten this year.
Interestingly, these conflicts were rooted in an unsubstantial power struggle rather than in differences over ideology or visions for rebuilding the nation during a transitional period of governance. The Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) in its year-end report questioned "the ethical and moral responsibility of civilian leaders -- who control executive, legislative and judicial institutions -- for dealing with the people's hardship".
LIPI highlighted the civilian leadership crisis in the House and MPR, in which legislators were frequently involved in "politicizing" the government's performance, while at the same time failing to question their own achievements. Their failure last month to substantially reform the 1945 Constitution was clear evidence of this weakness.
The suspension of constitutional reforms, particularly regarding the articles on presidential elections, clearly indicated that politicians were still unable to rid themselves of their own vested interests, the LIPI said. It also reflected the "conservatism" among political parties, which could influence politicians to maintain the outdated constitution, it added.
The House's anti-corruption credentials were further called into question when it failed to establish a special committee to investigate another Bulog scandal, this one concerning Rp 40 billion and allegedly involving House speaker Akbar Tandjung, who is also Golkar chairman. Although the House has voted to press forward with the proposal for a further debate at a plenary session in January, there was no guarantee that such an inquiry committee would be approved. In responding to public anger, legislators were not as fierce as they had been when dealing with the first Bulog scandal that led to the ouster of Gus Dur.
The people also expressed doubts over the House's seriousness in getting to the bottom of the deadly Trisakti and Semanggi incidents, believed to be the immediate trigger for mass riots that forced Soeharto to quit suddenly on May 21, 1998.
The extent of current legislators' sincerity in fighting for the public interest as a whole should also take account of their approvals of the government's proposals to raise tariffs for essential services such as telephone, water, electricity and transport, amid the economic crisis.