Who do legislators represent?

Representation is a key word in any general election. Could those elected to represent the people really represent people's interests? This is the question being dealt with by J. Soedjati Djiwandono of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

JAKARTA (JP): It has become almost everybody's slogan in this country "to make the general election a success", although it certainly means different things to different people with their own set of criteria. The same is true of those who don't want to make it successful, who are often scrutinized by various groups in society.

Whatever the case, however, it seems almost certain that the election will ultimately sustain the present status quo. It is a forlorn hope that the election will result in a People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) which will include members of the House of Representatives who will be interested in political reform.

It is even doubtful if most members of the new assembly, which is supposed to be the supreme governing body in the Indonesian political system provided under the 1945 Constitution, know much about reform, recognize the need for it, know how to implement it, or have the courage to introduce the idea and initiate steps towards it.

Long before the election, their candidacy was approved by the government through a special screening (litsus), which makes the election a mockery of democracy.

Thus it is to be expected that their allegiance is considered important to the present government, although in their rhetoric they usually pledge their loyalty to the Pancasila state ideology and the 1945 Constitution (in itself a redundant term, for Pancasila already forms an integral part of the Constitution), or to the New Order and its ideals, however defined and understood. The present regime seems to be perceived as representing all these.

In this country, we seem to have been wrongly taught that we have to remain loyal to the "state", and often this means the "government". In many respects, of course, the government does represent the state, especially in an external relation.

Strictly speaking, however, the government is only one component of the state. And governments, which in democracy is the creation of the people, come and go, while the two other components of the state, the land (country) and its people (the nation), will always remain. A citizen's constant loyalty, therefore, is to his or her country (fatherland) and people (nation). Loyalty to a government depends on the government's behavior.

During the last days of campaigning in the recent election in Great Britain, there was a discussion with Sir David Steel, founder of the former Liberal Party, by international calls organized and broadcast by CNN. One caller raised the issue of party discipline, by which party members tend to simply follow the party line. Sir David responded by saying that one must above all listen to one's own conscience, and then to one's constituency. Only then should one listen to one's party.

That is a lesson for Indonesian politicians. Unfortunately, in this country a "constituency" is more a myth than reality. Most members of MPR are various types of carpetbaggers. Their conscience may have been blunted by the confusion of values.

Still, to keep optimism alive, I have a dream, however remotely improbable it may be in it becoming true. It is often said that Indonesia is a country where nothing is impossible, anything is possible, and anything "can be arranged". The late former U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, Howard Jones, gave his memoir in an apt and intriguing title: Indonesia: The Possible Dream (1971).

Thomas Becket was a well-known figure in 12th century Britain. Acting as a complete courtier, close companion, and chancellor of King Henry II, Becket conformed in most respects to the whims of the king. But following the death of Becket's patron Theobald in 1161, the Archbishop of Canterbury who had made him archdeacon, the king made the mistake of placing Becket into the vacancy, assuming that Becket would support him in curtailing church power.

Consecrated as archbishop the following year, Becket not only assumed an austerity of conduct appropriate to the course he chose to follow, but he stood his ground as a staunch defender of the Church and its interests, in defiance of the king, which ultimately cost him his life.

I dream, against all odds, of the emergence of the Beckets of Indonesia, those who, although picked by the government, will truly represent the people by giving voice to their aspirations. Again, just a dream.