Seeking a balance between President, DPR

Seeking a balance between President, DPR

The following are excerpts of an interview with constitutional
law expert Sri Soemantri regarding the current political crisis.

Question: What does constitutional law have to say about the
current conflict between the legislature and the President?

Answer: We are in the middle of an attempt to find a new
balance between the House of Representatives (DPR) and the
President. The first two amendments of the Constitution give the
House a much stronger position. For instance, the House must at
least be notified (when the President) is appointing new
officials. Regardless, the two must maintain consultation so that
they understand each other's positions.

With its new powers, the DPR seems to be asserting its
function as the monitor (of the executive) in addition to its
functions of drawing up legislation and budgets.

This (new confidence) is what has caused problems between the
DPR and the President, whose political standing is now weak.

Had we adhered to the actual election result, with only a few
seats gained at the DPR Gus Dur (President Abdurrahman Wahid)
would never have become President. He was elected into office
because of the support of the central axis group (an alliance of
Islamic parties) and Golkar.

Now that they have withdrawn their support his position is
indeed weak. But Gus Dur retaliates by calling on popular support
despite the fact that any action should be taken through
representation.

The characteristics of a President usually influence the way
they run their administration ... Indeed we have yet to see the
political (maturity) needed in a democracy.

Could you elaborate on the above mentioned consultations?

The President and the DPR should continuously be in
consultation, because an administration's performance depends on
the quality of the people. Those people in the legislature and
the executive branches determine our state administration.

Yet both the DPR and the President stick to their ground in
this political rivalry.

Which is why the situation has worsened. Neither respects the
other. There won't be any solution (to the tension) if they both
insist on having their way.

What is the constitutional legal assessment of the arguments
of each of the parties?

The basis of their positions is political (logic), but
politics should be in line with the law. So, with the DPR
deciding on the memorandum, the President should adhere to it. If
he believes he is not guilty (of the financial scandals) as
charged by the memorandum, then he hasn't got any reason to
worry. Because (if he is innocent) there won't be any second
memorandum or a special session of the People's Consultative
Assembly (MPR, to impeach him).

How do we break the impasse?

We have to refer back to the Constitution, according to which
the MPR holds the final say (in state administration matters).
Everyone must be willingly accept with grace whatever decisions
are made by the MPR. This is something that most people have yet
to realize.

In our system, the MPR represents the people's sovereignty, so
all relevant processes must be undertaken by the MPR, unless (the
nation) wanted to have a re-election. But we will have to wait
for an election in 2004. Until we have another election, the MPR
is the ultimate sovereign so its decisions must be obeyed.

That is the legal solution to the problem. Surely anyone
involved in the decision making process must be committed to
national unity and the survival of this country.

So the solution is a special assembly of the MPR?

I am not saying it as such. But constitutionally, the MPR is
the authority that must be obeyed by everyone. The question is
how do we convene the special MPR assembly in ways that follow
the rules of the game.

Which are?

The first was the memorandum. There is a period of three
months (before the issuance) of any second memorandum, and
another month (before) a Working Committee (of the MPR) is given
two months to prepare for a special MPR assembly. This means a
total of six months after the issuance of the first memorandum.

Although the MPR does have the authority to convene a special
session now, doing so would create problems ... because the
political overtones of the motion would simply be overwhelming.

The annual session of the MPR could actually be used to
prepare regulations on when the body, for instance, can call for
a special assembly or regarding the procedures, in ways that are
clear and comprehensive so that they won't invite conflicting
interpretations.

With such clear guidelines there wouldn't be problems like we
are experiencing now, which stem from the fact that the National
Awakening Party (PKB, founded by Gus Dur) is a minority in the
MPR, and has to resort to demonstrations of mass support.

Has such a conflict between a president and legislature
occurred in other countries?

No, because no other country has an MPR. We have a different
system to many countries. We are a country with a mixture of
systems ... between the presidential system first developed in
the United States which is influential in Latin America, and the
parliamentary system of the European countries.

Does that mean our administrative system is in a shambles?

No, it's just that it is unfavorable for the development of a
multiparty political system.

The MPR must soon establish a state committee of experts on
constitutional law, whose task is to set up the preparatory
stages for constitutional change. They should sit together and
come up with alternatives. If the people want to have a direct
presidential election then we must have a real presidential
system. In that situation there wouldn't be any MPR and the
president would be very powerful. However, to prevent violations
by a President, we must also have a law on impeachment.

The team should be able to finish the task within two or three
years. (Deka Kurniawan)