Political elite, stop bickering

Political elite, stop bickering

By J. Soedjati Djiwandono

JAKARTA (JP): The new government under President Abdurrahman
Wahid and Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri has called itself
a Cabinet of National Unity. In my judgment, this designation
indicates the right priority of the government's overall policy.
One of the most serious consequences of the country's
multidimensional crisis is the danger of national disintegration.

Therefore, only if national unity, the main foundation of all
the policies of the government, can be restored can further
efforts be made to deal meaningfully with the many problems faced
by this nation, the magnitude of which would be a horrendous
challenge to any government. Thus, despite its understandable
shortcomings and despite our continued criticism, this new
government, the most legitimate that the nation has had for
decades, deserves the support of the whole nation.

Not least of all, it needs the support of its own ranks and
political leaders in the entire power structure, in whichever
branch of government they may be. Unfortunately, this is not what
seems to be happening.

Indeed, the central axis managed to block Megawati, chairwoman
of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan),
winner of the general election. Then they succeeded in putting
Abdurrahman in the presidential post instead of Megawati, who
would have rightfully occupied the position.

Abdurrahman, however, who did not even contest the election,
could not but be indebted to his supporters, not only the central
axis forces, but also the Golkar party, for his presidency. But
that is what we can get if we rely on the 1945 Constitution,
which creates the distinction between election politics and MPR
politics. This is not to be construed as failing in support of
President Abdurrahman on my part. As before, I just want to have
a impartial look into the 1945 Constitution.

As Abdurrahman has himself honestly admitted, the result has
been what may be called not just a compromise Cabinet or a "thank
you Cabinet", but also a "salad Cabinet". It seems doubtful if
Abdurrahman, at least initially, knew personally well enough
everyone in his new Cabinet, although formally and officially he
himself had appointed every one of them.

Constitutionally, his is a presidential government. But in
terms of its composition, it does look like a Cabinet under a
parliamentary system with a multiparty system. This would be
unthinkable in, for example, the United States, which also has a
presidential system of government. Interestingly, however, nor
would it be likely in the United Kingdom, which has a
parliamentary system.

The essential difference seems to lie in the fact that both
the U.S. and the UK use the two-party system. This, of course,
does not necessarily mean there are only two parties in a two-
party system. In the UK there have been more than two political
parties for many years.

That is part of the uniqueness of our political system that
purports to be based on the 1945 Constitution, which seems to
have never, ever, been designed from the start to provide for a
multiparty system.

In fact, at the beginning of Indonesian independence,
president Sukarno wished for the adoption of a single party, the
Indonesian National Party. But then at the insistence of Sutan
Sjahrir, and backed by Mohammad Hatta, the birth of political
parties was encouraged and a parliamentary system was adopted
without regard to the 1945 Constitution. That is part of our
history in the struggle for national independence.

My concern here is over whether our politicians are aware of
that delicate aspect of our current system of government. Hamzah
Haz resented the fact that he had been replaced as coordinating
minister for social welfare by someone from outside his party,
the PPP, the largest element of the axis forces.

He reminded us that without the support of the PPP, the very
party that had officially nominated Abdurrahman in the MPR for
the presidency, Abdurrahman would never have won that post. He
said the difference in the number of votes between Abdurrahman
and Megawati was 60, while his party had contributed 70 votes.

Then, Amien Rais, supposedly a famous reformer, threatened to
retaliate against "external threats", namely, attempts to
undermine the strength of the axis forces. Was not this contrary
to the spirit of reform and the determination to restore national
unity? Was it not a trace of the New Order way of conspiratorial
thinking, always inclined to find scapegoats?

Unfortunately, in turn, as though confirming the suspicion of
the axis forces, Dimyati Hartono of PDI Perjuangan faction in the
House of Representatives, threatened to censure Amien Rais as
Speaker of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), for his
continued advice of the federal system. He said it was a betrayal
of Amien's oath of office, by which he pledged loyalty to the
1945 Constitution, which provides for a unitary state.

Indeed, I regret Amien's way of thinking seemingly in the
context of a parliamentary system with a multiparty system. For a
moment, his emotional reaction to Hamzah Haz' replacement seems
to have made him forget that we still have a presidential system
of government. One would hope that President Abdurrahman remains
firm and steadfast in his position without bothering about a
dictate by any political party once his Cabinet was formed.

However, Dimyati's idea of a censure was apparently based on
what looked like his misreading the 1945 Constitution, not
untypical of many who blindly and uncritically adhere to it
without bothering even to read it carefully and with clear,
critical thinking.

Indeed, the 1945 Constitution was never meant to be final and
permanent. And for that matter, no constitution is, anytime and
anywhere in the world. The United Kingdom, one of the oldest and
most working democracies, does not even have a written
constitution, at least in the way we understand it.

The 1945 Constitution as practiced for over the past four
decades in this country has been in force merely on the basis of
Sukarno's decree of July 5, 1959, not on the decision by
democratically elected people's representatives.

The 1945 Constitution has proved capable only of sustaining a
dictatorship, be it in the name of "guided democracy" or
"Pancasila democracy" of Soeharto's New Order. It provides for no
effective control mechanism, because it does not provide the
principle of separation of powers in a system of checks and
balances, thereby rendering it vulnerable to manipulation by the
chief executive.

That the 1945 Constitution was never meant to be final and
permanent is clear from the fact that it still contains the so-
called transitional and additional or supplementary provisions.
And Article IV, which contains supplementary provisions, says in
par. (2) that "Within six months after the People's Consultative
Assembly has been formed, the Assembly shall convene to enact the
constitution."

So we can and should continue to engage ourselves in debates
and discourses on any problem, including the future form of our
state. This is healthy for the growth and development of a
democratic life.

The writer is a political analyst based in Jakarta.