We need Gus Dur as a symbol: Riswandha

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)