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.