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)