We need Gus Dur as a symbol: Riswandha

After Thursday's session between the President and legislators, Riswandha Imawan, lecturer of politics at the Yogyakarta-based Gadjah Mada University, suggests a "win-win solution."

Question: What's your view on the constitutional obligation of the President to reply to an interpellation motion of the House of Representatives?

Answer: Saying that there's no obligation to answer the motion because it's not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution is completely wrong.

First, the rights that House members have are attached to their obligation. They won't be able to practice their function of control if they don't have the rights of interpellation, inquiry and others.

Second, the Constitution never rules anything in detail. Only communist states do so. The more detailed a state regulates things, the more authoritarian structure it's building. The more simple the regulation, the more democratic the structure.

Law no. 4/1999 (on implementation of the Constitution which is more explicit on the rights) was proposed by the government to empower the House. Why should the government now deny that right?

How do you see Gus Dur's position now?

Gus Dur is now accused of violating Article 9 of the 1945 Constitution which states that a president should obey the Constitution and lower laws ... He's just created a condition that could bring him to a Special Session of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) ... His image as a democrat has shifted to an authoritarian figure.

Legislators' reactions were quite strong. How do you read this?

First, they are now more empowered and qualified; most have better formal education. Secondly, members have accumulated annoyances with Gus Dur. Remember how he described them as a bunch of "kindergarten pupils" and how he accused them of being biang kerok (provocateurs).

So 60 percent of the members' strong reactions reflected rationality, meaning that the President's answer was really ridiculous, and the remaining 40 percent reflected their being fed up (of Gus Dur's attitude).

Didn't the President understand the consequence of his answer?

I don't think he didn't understand ... yet he gave a very dangerous answer, saying he could not reply because the answers had been leaked. That could simply mean that since people already know, why should he explain. Gus Dur was thus indicating that he indeed fired the two economic ministers because of corruption, collusion and nepotism (KKN).

So I suggest that (ex-ministers) Laksamana Sukardi and Yusuf Kalla sue the President and ask the House to request that the President prove his accusations.

Gus Dur's presidential team has been criticized for being incapable of understanding the 1945 Constitution. Do you agree?

I don't think so. Whatever the team does is to satisfy the desire of their boss (so) they were only helping Gus Dur to dodge the real question. They twisted the Constitution to fit the objective. That's a clear example of intellectual prostitution.

What's the best solution for Gus Dur now?

The simplest way out would have been for Gus Dur to say straight away that it was a political reason that made him fire the two ministers ... the session would than have ended in no less than an hour (instead of more than four hours) ...

Or he could have said, "I'm sorry, I was wrong". He would then have had to reveal the real reason (for firing the ministers). Then he would have had to present evidence.

If it was because of KKN, he should take the ex-ministers to court and be ready to testify as a witness.

The problem is, he did not choose either way. Because he is said to be a leader who can do no wrong ... He treats everyone as his santri (students of Islamic boarding schools). That will follow him wherever he goes.

Gus Dur has agreed to submit a written answer. Your comment?

A written answer could prevent the public from knowing his response. I call on the House to announce the reply once they receive it.

Gus Dur must also replace his team of "whisperers" with a completely new one. It's for his own good as well as for the nation. He must also change his unchecked leadership, appropriate only for the pesantren (Islamic boarding school).

You said earlier that the head of government should be separated from the head of state. Could you elaborate?

This would now be a win-win solution (given the possibility of a proposal for a Special Session). Gus Dur has fanatic supporters who will not stand by watching while he is toppled.

A middle way would be for the MPR's annual session (in August) to decide to separate the head of government and head of state, so that Gus Dur becomes a symbol, and Megawati becomes head of government.

So you think she's capable of such a task?

She has led cabinet meetings a number of times, so she can be trusted. And as a symbol, Gus Dur's statements would not have such a big impact on the economic and political conditions.

This does not require changing the Constitution. But as it involves the highest position, it should be declared through the highest body, the MPR. But (separating the two functions) should only apply for this cabinet, as this is a special case.

Our constitution provides the space for the growth of democracy; what's not stated doesn't mean it's not allowed. Anyone who believes otherwise should go back to his studies. (Sri Wahyuni)