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Now that they have withdrawn their support his position is indeed weak.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)