Tyranny by the majority: Current decision making

Tyranny by the majority: Current decision making

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Political Analyst, Jakarta

Under Soeharto's New Order, the pattern of decision-making,
particularly in the legislative bodies, invariably took the form
of "deliberations towards unanimity" (musyawarah mufakat). The
democratic mechanism of voting, first described by first
president Sukarno as democracy of "half (50 percent) plus one"
was dismissed as an essence of liberal Western democracy
unsuitable to musyawarah mufakat as an expression of the
traditional spirit of mutual cooperation (gotong royong).

However that pattern of decision making satisfied no one but
the leader himself (the President), who was interested in making
so many things sacrosanct, thus not open to challenge or change
at all, as part of his efforts to perpetuate his own position and
power. The big parties considered the principle of unanimity
amounted to a tyranny by minorities.

Yet such fears were baseless, for the minorities always gave
way to the wishes of the majorities, for fear of violating the
principle of unanimity, and precisely for fear of accusations of
practicing tyranny by minorities. They did so to the extent that
they agreed to the enactment of legislation that were against
human rights, and as such, against the ideology of the state,
Pancasila, particularly the first principle, belief in God.

Thus the marriage law was passed by unanimity by the
legislature, although it contains an article stipulating that one
shall marry in accordance with one's religion, thus imposing the
obligation of professing a religion, which is a violation of
religious freedom. The same was true with the law on the national
system of education of 1989, recently replaced by a new, but
worse law.

In 1978, however, a big party, the United Party of Development
(PPP), while not violating the principle of unanimity, dared to
"walk out" from the session of the People's Consultative Assembly
(MPR), when the Assembly passed the decision of Pancasila
indoctrination (P4) "with unanimity" -- because the party did not
accept an article on the recognition of beliefs other than
religion (aliran kepercayaan).

The party again walked out from the MPR session in 1983 when
the MPR passed the state guidelines, which required all political
parties and mass organizations to adopt the compulsory
recognition of Pancasila, which also meant that no party or
organization would be based the same basis of (asas tunggal --
monolithic ideological basis) Pancasila.

In the era of reform, often known as the post-Soeharto
Indonesia, a walkout was first done by the National Awakening
Party (PKB) on the MPR's decision on an earlier Special Session
in 2001 that ended with the impeachment of president Abdurrahman
Wahid and the accession of President Megawati Soekarnoputri. And
yet a new way of expressing dissent was then introduced in
September 2001 by Megawati's ruling party, the Indonesian
Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), in the form of a
"note of understanding" to be appended to the DPR's decision to
enact the law on broadcasting in September 2003.

The latest decision pattern of decision-making in the
legislature, particularly the DPR, is the "no-voting" method.
This is not the same at all as Soeharto's style of unanimity. It
is one in which a consensus is assumed to have been reached
during the "lobby", thus outside formal sessions, among the
different factions in the House-- not the individual House
members.

Thus the House speaker simply asks with boring and disgusting
nonchalance if the members present can agree on the enactment of
the bill under discussion, and the members will respond almost in
unison, "aye" or "agree", without the speaker in the least
bothering to look or somehow to check or assess if a majority of
those present, or how large a majority, votes for the bill and
how many, if any, of them are against.

That recently happened in the case of the enactment of the
controversial law on the national system of education. It was the
unfair, the most dishonest, and the most pretentious and
hypocritical way of decision-making, especially in the light of
such a strategically important legislation.

It was, in the first place, definitely not a decision based on
unanimity, for the entire faction of the PDI Perjuanagan, the
largest in the House, did not even attend the session. At least
one faction, no matter how small, the faction of Kesatuan
Kebangsaan Indonesia (national unity of Indonesia), though
present in the session, did express opposition to the enactment
of the law and proposed a postponement.

Secondly, in that light, it seemed doubtful if it was a
decision by a majority.

Thirdly, it was even doubtful if it was a legal and valid
decision, for oddly, the final session was considered to have met
the quorum required, which was not based on the actual number of
members attending that final session, but reportedly on the
quorum reached at the first of the series of general sessions
when it was first convened.

Fourthly, worse still, because there was no voting, while
there was no unanimity, there was no record -- some kind of
congressional record -- on the members' respective performance of
their voting records, so that in effect the members are not
accountable to the people -- generally to their respective
constituencies if such constituencies did exist, which they do
not, for House members are responsible to their parties, which
they represent, rather than the people, despite their official
designation.

Worst, however -- fifthly -- it was an unjust procedure of
decision making in view of the controversy of the bill. To force
its enactment would amount to a tyranny by the majority,
especially because the controversial issues relate to state
intervention provided by the bill in matters of human rights,
particularly freedom of religion.

In essence it amounted to state intervention in internal
matters of religion, and thus in human conscience. Otherwise a
majority decision through a democratic mechanism would be valid,
not a tyranny by the majority.

House members should have realized that the forceful
imposition of such a controversial law would be harmful to
national unity, at a time when the nation is on the verge of
disintegration. It may well be a bad precedent for future
legislation. When will Indonesian politicians learn honesty, to
themselves, and to the public -- the people whose interests and
aspirations they are supposed to represent?