Whose representatives?

Whose representatives?

The race for the November presidential election will likely
intensify after the General Elections Commission finishes
counting the votes this week or next. Since neither of the two
front-runners has won enough votes to secure the presidency
outright, the focus will turn to the 65 seats for "functional
groups" in the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR). What happens
with these 65 representative votes could well be the decisive
factor in November.

Next on the KPU's main agenda will be to decide how the 65
seats are distributed. They are given to representatives of
societal groups, including religious councils, women's
organizations, professional associations and business groups. The
representatives are chosen by their respective groups, with the
endorsement of the House of Representatives, and final approval
by the president.

Their presence in the MPR is mandated by the 1945 Constitution
to ensure that every group in society is represented in the
state's highest decision-making body. It is all fine and good
concerning their involvement in drawing up the State Policy
Guidelines; their presence ensures the interests of their groups
are taken into account. But when it comes to electing the
president, especially in the close race assured in November's
election, there is the moral question: Who will they really
represent when they vote?

The groups are already well-represented by the political
parties. Some, in fact, may be grossly overrepresented. The ulema
selected for MPR seats, for example, will join several others who
have taken up political careers. Some journalists also won MPR
seats in last month's elections, as did many scholars, teachers,
artists, lawyers and entrepreneurs. Workers, with three labor
parties representing them in last month's elections, still failed
to secure any representation.

As the swirling debate on the presidential election clearly
shows, members of the functional groups are split on the issue.
One group of ulema supports the nomination of incumbent B.J.
Habibie, but another has expressed support for Megawati
Soekarnoputri. Some journalists, scholars and lawyers were
elected in last month's elections to represent Habibie's Golkar,
and others for Megawati's Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle
(PDI Perjuangan). There is no way of telling, or God forbid,
forcing the 65 functional representatives in the MPR to vote for
one or the other candidate if their own groups are divided on
this issue.

The presence of the representatives in the MPR is one of the
anomalies of our Constitution. Its intention -- that the highest
state organ in the country encompasses every group in society --
is noble. It may even have served its purpose when the nation was
in its infancy, and political parties at the time were deemed as
not representing all groups in society.

But, as history has shown, this noble intention was abused by
Soeharto, who personally selected the representatives to ensure
that he was unanimously elected president six times in the past
32 years. With Habibie clearly trailing Megawati after last
month's elections, there is the danger that he, too, will follow
the lead of his political mentor, vetting candidates for the
functional representatives to bolster his own position. After
all, he will have the final say in their selection. Looking at
last month's election results, one can be sure that Habibie will
be counting on the support of the 65 representatives to have any
realistic chance of beating Megawati.

Given that we have yet to amend the 1945 Constitution, the
nation will have to follow the prescribed election procedures,
including selecting the functional representatives. But there is
one way in which these selected representatives could help
promote our fledging democracy: They should abstain when called
on to vote in November. If they follow their conscience, this is
exactly what they are expected to do. A pledge to abstain made
before they are sworn in to office would help to put to rest the
debate, and probably an ugly fight, over how they should vote.

We already find ourselves with too many kingmaker wanna-bes
jostling for position in the run-up to November. The minority
political factions, which include the military, are showing signs
that they want to land as many concessions as possible in return
for their support for the candidates.

While the presence of the functional representatives in the
MPR is probably justifiable or at least constitutional, they
cannot be used to tip the balance in a democratic race. Like the
38 seats allocated to the military, the seats for the functional
groups are not elected offices. They should not be used to foil
the people's will, which has already been clearly expressed in
the June elections.