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.