Observers disappointed with MPR's Annual Session

JAKARTA (JP): Numerous political observers were disappointed with the People's Consultative Assembly's (MPR) 10-day Annual Session which concluded on Friday, saying it paid more attention to power bargaining than the economic crisis afflicting the country.

Arbi Sanit, a political expert from the University of Indonesia, told The Jakarta Post by phone that he was not impressed with the Annual Session because it looked like an arena of power bargaining among the political parties.

"I'm very disappointed with the Annual Session and its results," he said.

He said during the Annual Session, there were too many compromises among the factions. They were trying to discredit each other instead of looking for solutions to the economic problems hurting the country.

He said the Assembly's results and possible impact to people's lives did not equal the high cost paid to finance the Annual Session.

"It was too costly for the results it yielded. And the Assembly should be pressed to be more productive in the next Annual Sessions," he said.

The Annual Session absorbed some Rp 25.7 billion (US$3 million) and nearly half of it was used to cover hotel expenses for its 700 members.

Arbi also criticized the Assembly for not giving enough attention to the reform agenda, especially for a direct presidential election and a two-house legislative system.

"The Assembly's failure to adopt the direct presidential election system and to accept the presence of a regional representative faction is an indication that factions and legislators are interested in their own political interests and are ignoring people's economic hardships," he said.

Factions should be involved in lobbies and political bargaining but it should be done for the people, not for their parties or power, he added.

Arbi also questioned the Assembly's ignorance of people's grievances in Aceh, Maluku, North Maluku and Irian Jaya.

"There are serious problems in the provinces where locals are killing each other and are no longer confident in the government and I did not see any recommendations being made during the Annual Session to solve the problems," he said.

Johannes Kristiadi, the deputy director of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), concurred and said the Assembly was pressed to be hasty and not professional in amending the Constitution.

"To me, the amending of the Constitution was conducted hastily and the Assembly looked unprofessional and this could be seen from the overwhelming flow of protest and criticisms fired at the Assembly during the Annual Session," he said.

He suggested the Assembly set up an independent expert team to help amend the Constitution so that the amendment process was free from short-term political interests.

"The Assembly could not hastily amend the Constitution to avoid an annual amendment to it. An expert team is also needed because most members of the Assembly lack skill and expertise in constitutional discipline," he said, citing for example the sudden change in the definition of Indonesia's territory.

Kristiadi also regretted the Assembly's political compromise in maintaining the military/police faction's presence in the highest legislative body until 2009.

"I'm sure the decision didn't come from military headquarters, but from political guerrillas or civilian politicians who staged an all-out battle for power," he said.

Overall, Kristiadi questioned the necessity of having such a session annually as it overlaps with the House of Representatives' function in controlling the government.

Political activist Mulyana W. Kusumah also criticized the various amendments saying that many articles sounded similar to laws.

"The Constitution should contain substantial or fundamental things necessary for the state system and democracy, while the details should be made into law. With the current amendment, the Assembly is trying to write everything in detail in the Constitution," he said.

He also said the decree regulating the delegation of duty from the President to the Vice President was a constitutional coup because it meant the Assembly could interfere in the executive's internal affairs.

Andi A. Mallarangeng, an expert staff member of the state minister for regional autonomy, said the Assembly failed to make a policy on regional administration in line with the planned implementation of regional autonomy.

"The Assembly should adopt the proposed direct presidential election because it is in line with regional autonomy. If not, the Assembly should recommend a direct governor and regent election," he said. (rms/nvn)