Public debate on Sutiyoso

Public debate on Sutiyoso

The Jakarta Legislative Council will decide in the next few
days whether to accept or reject the speech by Governor Sutiyoso
whereby he accounted for his 2001 performance. Council members
have been working hard in recent weeks scrutinizing the
Governor's performance as well as his speech. In the course of
their work, they have held meetings in exotic places like the
Puncak hill resort south of Jakarta and Ancol beach resort in
North Jakarta, as well as in their own office building.

On Friday, they have to make a decision one way or another.

If the Council rejects the speech, Sutiyoso will be given an
opportunity to improve on his speech and to make some sort of
commitments to amend whatever shortcomings were perceived by the
Council. If the Council is satisfied with the report, either in
its present or a new improved version, it will then endorse the
speech, and Sutiyoso will keep his job. If the Council was not
satisfied, however, it has the constitutional power to initiate
the process to replace the Governor.

This all looks like a nice game we all call democracy.
Accountability, an important element in democracy, is very much
part of this relatively new game in town.

Each year since 2000, the Governor of Jakarta has been
required to submit himself to scrutiny by representatives of the
people. His performance is constantly being put to the test. He
must account for the power given to him by the people every year.

Could Jakartans expect more from the system? Yes.

There is something terribly amiss about this picture of this
exercise in democracy. Where do the people -- the nine million or
so residents -- come in? If democracy is about people, their
absence from this picture renders the entire process of ensuring
accountability useless. This is nothing but a game by and for the
elite few, and it is making a complete mockery of democracy.

Ever since DPRD Jakarta began its deliberation of Sutiyoso's
speech, we have not heard of its members consulting the people
about what they think of the Governor's performance in 2001.
Instead, the council members went to these exclusive retreats, at
taxpayers' expense, on the assumption that they already knew what
the public think, or that they knew what was best for the people.

Public debate, to these representatives, is a strange concept.
They presume that because they were elected for a five-year term,
they need not consult the people until the next elections.

The Council members could not be more wrong. Their election
was never meant to be a carte blanche to do whatever they see fit
to do. They have to constantly nurture the trust and mandate
given to them. Ideally, they should be subject to periodic
scrutiny and should be replaceable midway through their terms if
they do not perform.

The present system does not make such provision, but that is
all the more reason why Council members should periodically
consult the electorate and gauge public feeling on matters
crucial to the life of the city. One way of doing this is by
holding public debates on various issues of importance, from
drafting bylaws, to the scrutiny of the Governor's performance
and, later this year, the election of the Jakarta Governor.

The Council should be thankful to the likes of Wardah Hafidz
and her Urban Poor Consortium (UPC), who went to the trouble of
visiting the Council to voice their disapproval of Sutiyoso's
governorship when he delivered his annual speech of
accountability. Instead of ignoring them and thus allowing a
bunch of thugs to attack Wardah and her friends, Council members
should have allowed them in, and listened to their grievances.

Wardah is only a small part of the story of the people in
Jakarta. Council members should reach out to more and more people
of all social backgrounds to find out their aspirations. This
way, they could gauge the public approval rating of the Governor.

The performance of Governor Sutiyoso is not solely the affairs
of the Council. The question of whether he should remain in
charge of this capital city cannot be left entirely in its hands.

All residents of Jakarta felt, either directly or indirectly
the brunt of his many failings: From the massive flood to the
increasingly impossible traffic and growing pollution, the
failures of public services, the garbage that went uncollected
for weeks and the rampant corruption in the administration.

Residents of Jakarta should be given a chance to voice their
feelings about the Governor's performance, or in Sutiyoso's case,
his lack thereof. They have the right to participate in this
process of seeing that every elected official, including and most
importantly the Governor, is held accountable. Only then can we
reasonable claim that democracy lives in this city.