On constitutional reform
On constitutional reform
From Neraca
Recently, constitutional law expert Prof. Dr. Ismail Suny said Abdurrahman Wahid's (popularly known as Gus Dur) proposal on the separation of power between the head of state and the head of government was contrary to the 1945 Constitution. "Based on the 1945 Constitution, the president is the head of state and at the same time the head of government," said Ismail Suny at a Golkar political discussion session in Jakarta on June 19.
Ismail Suny further said that if the idea was implemented there must be a prior amendment of the 1945 Constitution, and the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) working body must be established to prepare a bill for the amendment. Suny has concluded that Gus Dur's statement was not in accordance with the 1945 Constitution.
The professor's statement was certainly based on the assumption that the 1945 Constitution cannot be amended or "is not allowed to be changed". It means that in this country, reform regarding the principles of state constitutional law cannot be changed. There is a tendency to group the people who do not want a change to our Constitution as the status quo group. I am not saying that Ismail Suny belongs to the group but apparently he has based his statement on the assumption quoted above.
What about Gus Dur? This Nahdlatul Ulama figure is mysterious. Political observers have categorized his party the National Awakening Party (PKB) as a secular one, that is not as reformist as the National Mandate Party (PAN). They say PKB tends to compromise with many sides, including the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) that carries the stamp of the status quo. Is it true?
Considering that the consistency of Gus Dur's statement is hard to guess, the answer remains difficult. However, his political ties are clearly observable: he indicates he wants to join forces with anybody, including the Indonesian military (TNI) and the non-Muslim groups. With his recent statement on the separation of power between the head of government and the head of state, is he anti-status quo or proreform?
It is difficult to answer the question, because all parties vow to be reformist, do they not? However, to clarify his statement, Gus Dur can put forward another assumption, i.e. that the 1945 Constitution can or may be changed. Perhaps Gus Dur has based his statement on this assumption. What is Gus Dur's stance? Does he agree with reform, or a change in the 1945 Constitution, or an amendment of the 1945 Constitution? Just ask the grass blown by the wind!
ABDILLAH KAMIL
Jakarta