President Habibie faces 'political trial' at MPR

President Habibie faces 'political trial' at MPR

JAKARTA (JP): History repeats in itself.

More than three decades ago the New Order regime under
Soeharto gained the legitimacy to resume power after bringing
founding president Sukarno before the Provisional People's
Consultative Assembly in 1967 to account for the abortive coup
attempt blamed on the now defunct Indonesian Communist Party.

Sukarno, probably aware that whatever defense he presented
would meet with opposition, held his head up high when he
delivered his accountability speech, which was titled Nawaksara
(Sanskrit word for nine letters). The Assembly unanimously
rejected his speech, stripped him of his "Great Leader of
Revolution" title and ousted him.

Tuesday will be judgment day for President B.J. Habibie, who
has been called the New Order's last bastion for his now ailing
mentor Soeharto, when the 700-member Assembly decides whether to
accept his accountability report on his 17-month tenure.

Like Sukarno, Habibie, who claims to have cleared the path
toward democracy in the country, is facing a vote of no-
confidence from opposition parties in the Assembly.

But unlike Sukarno who waged a solitary defense before the
Assembly, Habibie has a horde of advocates grouped in the Golkar
Party, although a defeat in Tuesday's vote may force the party to
abandon the wagon.

Golkar has named Habibie its sole presidential candidate, but
its board of executives led by Akbar Tandjung is entrusted to
decide on whether to change tactics at the last minute. This
could include dropping Habibie's candidacy.

There will be no legal consequences if the Assembly gives a
vote of no-confidence to Habibie's report. But it will adversely
affect his legitimacy and credibility, according to Akbar.

The Indonesian Transparency Society and a group of
Yogyakarta's Gadjah Mada University alumni are critical of the
absence of consequences for a president whose accountability
speech is turned down. They have urged the Assembly to issue a
decree which bans a president who is given a vote of no-
confidence from running for reelection.

The custom of a president giving an accountability report has
caused concern among constitutional law experts, due to its
nature which resembles a political trial.

"A small mistake will be blown up if a president faces an
Assembly that is dominated by his or her rivals. On the other
hand, a major blunder will be reduced to nothing if a president
delivers the speech before his or her supporters," Suwoto of
Surabaya's Airlangga University said.

In the past, Soeharto made full use of his accountability
speech, which was always passed unopposed, to justify his bid for
reelection.

Suwoto said that instead of waging inadvertent attacks on a
president, the Assembly should refer to the Constitution and
State Policy Guidelines when it appraises a president's
performance as reflected in his or her accountability report.

Another expert, Sutandyo Wignyosubroto, shared Suwoto's view,
saying that if the long-standing convention should be maintained,
objective assessments should apply.

"In my opinion, a president is obliged to present an
accountability report. The Assembly's decision of whether to
accept the report should be based on the president's fulfillment
of Assembly decrees and State Policy Guidelines mandated to him
or her," Soetandyo said.

Suwoto said the government's policy on East Timor could be
viewed as one of the mistakes Habibie made during his brief
administration, on the grounds that he did not comply with the
1978 Assembly decree which legalizes the integration of the
former Portuguese colony into the country as its 27th province.
(byg/amd)