Mon, 09 Nov 1998

Whither the Special Session of MPR?

J. Soedjati Djiwandono

JAKARTA (JP): In a way, People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) sessions throughout former president Soeharto's New Order regime resembled Javanese shadow shows. Most people attending already knew the plot, some even in great detail. Yet they still turned up to find out how the story was going to be told by the particular dalang (puppeteer, story teller). That's where the fun lay.

There, however, the similarity ended -- for the dalang remained the same, namely, Soeharto. There was hardly any fun in his "show", and people participated in the whole process, particularly in the general elections, mostly because they had no choice.

With regard to the coming Special Session of the MPR, however, it is not clear what the story is all about, or if one has been written at all. And there may be more than one dalang. So how the story will be told is part of the mystery of the Special Session.

It may not be apt, however, to compare this year's Special Session of the MPR with that of the Provisional People's Consultative Assembly (MPRS) in early 1967. They are the only two Special Sessions of the supreme governing body in the Indonesian political system based on the 1945 Constitution. The latter was convened when the late president Sukarno was still in power, although whether his power was real is questionable.

Of greater importance is that the dalang was the newly emerging leader in the person of general, later acting president, and then president, Soeharto. He was the man calling the shots.

Now that Soeharto has resigned, the coming MPR Special Session is a result of an agreement between President B.J. Habibie and the MPR's leaders. The Special Session of the MPRS had president Sukarno's accountability report as the main item on its agenda.

He was held responsible for the Gestapu affair -- an abortive coup attempt by the now defunct Indonesian Communist Party on Sept. 30, 1965.

In hindsight it looks contrary to reason that president Sukarno should have been held responsible for what was regarded as a coup attempt, by definition an act directed against him. But putting logic aside, Sukarno's accountability report was rejected. He was to remain president, yet Soeharto was appointed acting president, and the following year full president, replacing Sukarno.

Taking the Special Session of the MPRS as a precedent, logically the coming Special Session of the MPR should first of all demand former president Soeharto's accountability report. Indeed, there has been no coup attempt or anything similar to the Gestapu affair. But the monetary and economic crisis has revealed how badly the country's political system functioned under Soeharto because of his manipulation through collusion, corruption, nepotism and cronyism. This spurred the accelerated movement for reform that finally led to Soeharto's resignation.

It has, overall, been a crisis no less epoch-making than the Gestapu affair.

Soeharto's accountability would not be enough, however. As president, together with Habibie as vice president, he was the result of his own manipulation of the MPR, the political parties, and the general elections. Thus not only his presidency, but the entire New Order system has turned out to be lacking in legitimacy.

And not only Soeharto, but all the sociopolitical forces -- Golkar, the United Development Party (PP), the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) of Surjadi (now Budi Hardjono), and the Armed Forces (ABRI), and thus the MPR itself, which unanimously elected Soeharto as president and Habibie as vice president unopposed -- are all responsible for the malfunctioning of the political system.

Therein lies the justification, and the legitimacy of the Special Session of the MPR. A new mandate of the people is required, and thus a fresh general election that will form a new MPR, elect a new president and a new vice president, and thus a new government that will be more representative of the people.

Short of that, the justification and legitimacy of the Special Session will depend on whether it results in decisions imbued with the political will to implement total and comprehensive reform of the political system as demanded by the people. Only then will it truly embody the aspirations of the people.