The pros and cons of the presidential bill

The pros and cons of the presidential bill

The issue of who is to take over the country's reins if the
president and vice president both become incapacitated has been
the subject of controversy over the past few weeks. Political
analyst J. Soedjati Djiwandono reflects on the issue.

JAKARTA (JP): We have laws on state institutions including the
House of Representatives, the People's Consultative Assembly and
the Supreme Court. Yet we have no law on the presidency except
Assembly (MPR) decree No. VII/1973, which provides for the
establishment of a triumvirate consisting of the home affairs
minister, the foreign minister and military commander in the
event of the incapacitation of both the president and the vice
president. The triumvirate is to prepare for the election of a
new president within a period of three months.

Such a law is certainly important, but its urgency is
questionable. While not impossible, the likelihood of the
simultaneous incapacitation of both the president and the vice
president is too remote to be given priority in these early days
of the reform process.

The custom of certain countries of not allowing their
presidents and vice presidents to ever travel on the same
aircraft, for example, is to reduce the possibility of such an
eventuality.

Moreover, a decree by the Assembly is supposed to be superior
to a piece of legislation by the House of Representatives (DPR).
It is therefore doubtful if the latter can replace the former.

That is basically the argument, rightly to my mind, made by
Harun Alrasid (The Jakarta Post, Feb. 29). However, to suggest
that the Assembly decree of 1973 is invalid because the
establishment of a triumvirate was "not recognized by the
Constitution" is a faulty argument.

Precisely because in certain cases the Constitution does not
provide sufficiently clear and detailed guidance, the Assembly
determines the necessary regulations on such cases as the
simultaneous incapacitation of both the president and vice
president.

I agree, again, with him when he writes that it is "entirely
up to the Assembly to decide if it wished to amend it using the
new formula of speakers of the Assembly, House and Supreme
Court." Yet the professor went on to call it a "strange idea".
Interestingly, nonetheless, he offered a no less strange
alternative, namely, that the Assembly speaker should "handle the
matter alone" under such extraordinary circumstances.

I wonder if the political elite in this country really
understands the need for reform, and particularly why the
constitution needs amending, and what the priorities are.

I have argued on a number of occasions in this paper that I
stand not just for amendments, but for a new constitution
altogether.

I, for one, find it difficult to follow the thinking of our
politicians. There have been earlier efforts in the Assembly to
enact a ruling meaning the vice president would not automatically
succeed the president in the event of the latter's permanent
incapacitation as stipulated by Article 8 of the 1945
Constitution.

In the light of developments in the aftermath of the 1999
general election, one cannot but get the impression that such
efforts have been motivated by short-term, narrow political
interests, namely, to block vice president Megawati's chances of
ever succeeding President Abdurrahman Wahid in the event of his
incapacitation.

Anxiety over the possibility, however remote, of President
Abdurrahman becoming incapacitated, especially when his seeming
health problems are considered, is understandable. But anxiety
over the prospect of Vice President Megawati taking over power in
the face of such an eventuality, though also understandable, may
be exaggerated. To be candid however, I share this anxiety myself
on both counts.

To do justice to the vice president, however, certain factors
need to be considered. First, it is not easy to be a second
fiddle, to be second in command, at any time anywhere in the
world. In fact, it's the most difficult job. In such a position,
it is never easy for anyone to prove their muscle.

Second, as in the case of the late president Harry S. Truman
of the United States, one is often underestimated until, to the
surprise of everyone else, one has the opportunity to prove
oneself. Third, the office often makes the man. Let's just hope
that if the need should arise, that would apply to the vice
president. In the final analysis, however, we should be prepared
to pay the high price for democracy.