'Opposition': What's in a name?

The question of the desirability and constitutional legality of political opposition in Indonesia has surfaced once again. In the following article political observer J. Soedjati Djiwandono takes a look at the issue.

JAKARTA (JP): The recent debate on whether there should be an opposition in the Indonesian political system still misses the real issue, although both the pro and con sides have a valid case. The real issue is not about opposition as such, which may be understood in different ways.

In terms of the parliamentary system, we do not have an opposition. But opposition can still be found in a presidential system such as in the United States, where the president and members of Congress are elected separately, though directly, by the people. There, as opposed to an established institution as in the parliamentary system following the British model, the opposition has different rights and responsibilities.

The real point at issue in the present Indonesian political system is the lack of control over the executive branch of the government. However defined, that is the essence of an opposition. To say that opposition is contrary to the so-called family principle does not make much sense, for it is no more than a myth. At best it is a vague idea.

Ardent supporters of the present political status quo would readily argue that the 1945 Constitution does provide that the powers of the President are "not unlimited", and that he shall "seriously listen to the views of the House of Representatives". But what mechanism is there in our system to ensure the implementation of those principles, and under what sanction? Absolutely none.

That is where a revitalization, if not a reform, is in order, in the sense of developing an effective mechanism to ensure the implementation of constitutional provisions. More, of course, is needed. To say that there is no deed for reform, because the present system is effective, is to misunderstand the essence of democracy. To be sure, the present system is very effective, that is, in terms of the exercise of power -- by the executive -- practically without constraints. That is certainly not the kind of democracy the 1945 Constitution provides. And who is to have the final say whether we need a reform?

Yes, while an ideal democracy has universal value, as a system, it may vary. Yet any variant of democracy should not betray its essence. In a democracy, power comes from the people, and it is, therefore, to serve the interests of the people, and, as such, it is to be subject to control by the people, to ensure its proper use and to avoid, or at least minimize its abuse. These form the essential ingredients of a democracy.

It is unfair to dismiss earnest suggestions for reform as "alien" to the nation's identity. Are we serious in our rejection of all things "alien"? Moreover, how is "national identity" to be defined, and who is to define it anyway?

It would be good if the executive branch initiated reform, for legislative powers are vested in its hands. This, however, seems unlikely.

One would hope for initiatives by the People's Consultative Assembly, the supreme governing body in the Indonesian system as holder of the people's sovereignty. But here, one would get into a vicious circle. It would be a long and complex story that cannot possibly be explained in one stroke.

At all events, leaving everything to the leader, whose every pronouncement is to be legally binding for the whole nation, is tantamount to applying the principle of "the King can do no wrong". If one still calls that "democracy", we have a serious problem on our hands. How, for instance, would one distinguish the Pancasila Democracy of the New Order from the "Guided Democracy" of the Old Order?