'Opposition': What's in a name?

'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?