Process of constitutional reform ambivalent

Process of constitutional reform ambivalent

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Political Analyst, Jakarta

Controversies have developed in the country over
constitutional amendments. It could well be a crossroads in the
process of reform.

On the one hand, there are those who believe that the process
of constitutional amendments has not gone far enough. Others
think that the reform process has gone too far. They are
concerned about the possibility that the process of amendments,
now at its third stage, may well end with a completely new
constitution substituting the current 1945 Constitution. They are
of the view that while amendable, the 1945 Constitution is to be
of permanent nature, particularly as regards the basic values
contained therein, especially in its preamble, the five
principles of Pancasila.

Indeed, such conservative people seem inclined to regard
Indonesia's founding fathers as infallible visionaries, whose
"common" vision the present generation of Indonesians ought
simply to try to realize and to carry out fully. In fact, the
founding fathers certainly could not have foreseen or
anticipated, nor understood the changes that have taken place in
the world since their time. Nor could they have seen the way the
system they created has been operating in the present world.

It is therefore wrong to regard whatever ideas propounded by
the founding fathers, such as the 1945 Constitution and the
Pancasila ideology, as sacrosanct and therefore not to be subject
to any change in accordance with changing times and changing
demands. The present generation cannot and should not take many
things for granted that the previous generations of Indonesian
leaders did as regards a number of ideas like Indonesian
nationhood and national unity.

Indeed, many seem so averse to change that they would resort
to vague and incomprehensible concepts and terminologies. One
amendment to an article in the 1945 Constitution is an example:
Before amendment, the article on sovereignty was that
"sovereignty of the people shall be fully implemented by the
People's Consultative Assembly" (MPR). Now, however, it has been
substituted by a circular definition: "Sovereignty shall be fully
implemented by the people according to the Constitution".

A direct election of the president, which has generally been
accepted, would logically lead to the abolition of the People's
Consultative Assembly, since it would logically strip the
Assembly of its essential constitutional roles. But no one has
yet voiced that suggestion.

It seems clear that those legislators in the MPR only think of
their own short-term interest. Understandably, they would not
amend the constitution so as to sign their own death warrant, as
it were.

They seem to forget, however, that they are not going to be in
the MPR forever, at least because no person is immortal. But they
also forget that constitutional change or amendments are above
all for future generations.

The same may be said about the so-called representatives of
the functional group, a concept without real foundation. They
want to continue to maintain that senseless concept simply
because it was created by the founding fathers.

In fact, the founding fathers' idea of the party system was so
simplistic as to be limited to their understanding of the so-
called politik aliran -- based on ethnic, religious, or
ideological foundations -- rather than a party system that would
attempt to represent as wide range of interests as possible.
Thus, the party system to be developed ought to be one that would
accommodate the interests of whatever groups claiming to be of a
"functional" nature.

Otherwise the number of the so-called functional groups is
likely to increase beyond reason rather than decrease. And unless
and until such functional groups feel that their interests are
accommodated, represented and served by political parties, they
would continue to feel they have the rights -- privilege, in fact
-- to be represented through appointment.

Or, equally harmful to democracy, claiming to uphold
democratic principles, they may form their own political parties
so as to be able to contest the elections. This would only
increase the already unbelievable, irrational and shameful number
of political parties registered thus far.

No less basic is the question of understanding the term
"reform". So far, there has been a confusing position of many
that amendments can only be made to the body, not the preamble,
of the 1945 Constitution. Soeharto's New Order was so successful
in imposing on Indonesians -- through indoctrination begun by
Sukarno -- the sacred or sacrosanct nature of so many ideas,
particularly the Pancasila ideology.

In fact, democratic ideals would adequately cover all the five
principles of Pancasila. Never to dare to change Pancasila as an
ideology -- which is no more than a formulation of ideals -- is
only an indication of the existing differences in understanding
those principles. This clearly refers particularly to the first
principle. By making Pancasila sacrosanct, we would perpetuate
these differences, for Indonesians are yet to learn how to handle
differences peacefully.

In addition, such ideals as national unity has for long been
taken for granted rather than maintained through the promotion of
social justice. Unfortunately, national unity has been confused
with the unitary form of the Indonesian state. This has led to
the incomprehensible slogan of "national unity and uniformity"
(persatuan dan kesatuan).

Indeed, by definition "reform" means a change within and
through the existing system. That, however, should not bar an
eventual change of the constitution itself, if that is in the
best interest of the nation. The debate on whether the 1945
Constitution is of temporary or permanent nature is only an
indication of ignorance, intellectual inadequacy and lack of
knowledge, particularly of contemporary history. A number of
countries, East and West alike, have changed their constitutions
and survived. Nevertheless, some people now take a contradictory
stand, that "the constitution may be amended, but not the
system".

What is seriously wrong about the process of constitutional
reform in this country is that our politicians have no common
vision; no common goal towards which reform should ultimately
lead; no common understanding of why we really need reform and
what reform is really about. They also differ among themselves on
the extent to which the political system has contributed to the
never-ending multidimensional crisis that has hit the country.