Political interests threaten amendments of the constitution
Kurniawan Hari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
The unresolved tug of war among politicians in the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) looks set to cast doubt over the constitutional amendments that are to be deliberated when the Assembly convenes from Aug. 1 through Aug. 10.
An agreement among the members of the 90-strong Assembly working group on the drafts of the amendments last Thursday provides no guarantee that the Annual Session of the 700-member Assembly will proceed as smoothly as everybody hopes.
The consensus in the working group is subject to change as most Assembly members were not directly involved in the discussion of the constitutional amendments.
Possible changes in stance by the factions may yet be dictated by their political interests.
Among the contentious issues unresolved after more than a year of negotiation are the composition of the Assembly (Article 2), the powers of the Assembly in elections (Article 3), the presidential election system (Article 6A), monetary authority (Article 23D), religious affairs (Article 29(1) and (2)), and educational affairs (Article 31).
Concerning the composition of the Assembly, the Interest Group faction was the only faction that defended its own existence in the midst of opposition from the other factions.
The political stance of the Interest Group faction was a reversal of a unanimous agreement reached by the Assembly last year to set up the Regional Representatives' Council (DPD).
Under the new system, the MPR would be made up of both the House of Representatives (DPR) and the DPD. All members of both institutions would be elected through general elections.
The military/police faction is, however, undecided on the issue. This stance is understandable as the future presence of the 38 unelected military and police officers in the Assembly will be threatened.
As to direct presidential elections, a sign of good faith was shown by the most influential party in the Assembly, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), when it backtracked on its intention to retain the authority of the Assembly in presidential elections.
Previously, the PDI Perjuangan faction had insisted on leaving the final say in a presidential election with the Assembly if all of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates failed to win a simple majority of votes in the first round.
With over 30 percent of the votes cast in the 1999 election, the PDI Perjuangan was confident enough to accept direct presidential elections.
The party's support for a direct presidential election system will also be a good campaigning plank as it shows the public the party's commitment to the reform agenda.
The second biggest party in the Assembly, the Golkar Party, played a major role in changing the PDI Perjuangan stance. From the beginning, Golkar has agreed to direct presidential elections mainly because of its calculation that it enjoyed vast regional support following the establishment of some new regencies.
A series of negotiations between leaders of the PDI Perjuangan and Golkar raised speculation of backroom deals between them, which both sides have denied.
Meanwhile, two Islamic oriented parties, the United Development Party (PPP) and the Crescent Star Party (PBB), have been using the amendment issue as an opportunity for political campaigning.
Despite opposition from other factions and criticism from observers, the two parties are steadfast in their support for the inclusion of the seven words of the Jakarta Charter in Article 29 of the Constitution.
The original Article 29 states that the State is based on belief in one supreme God, while the PPP and PBB want to add a phrase which acknowledges sharia.
The Reform faction, which groups the National Mandate Party (PAN) and Justice Party (PK), suggested that the Assembly seek another alternative which could accommodate the strong demand, including from the PK, for the recognition of sharia.
Many predicted that the strong political interests at play would make the earlier agreement useless if the factions did not adhere to political ethics.
A member of the Ad Hoc Constitutional Amendment Committee, Asnawi Latif, emphasized that each faction was free to backtrack on earlier agreements if this suited their political interests.
"However, if we adhere to political ethics," Asnawi added, "the agreement should be followed up on."
Fellow committee member Baharuddin Aritonang admitted that the constitutional amendment process remained unpredictable mainly because of the political interests at work.
Observers have repeatedly criticized the politicians for pursuing their own interests in the constitutional amendment process at the expense of the public. They have urged the establishment of an independent commission to take over the job from the Assembly.