The current members of the House of Representatives deserve and enjoy a stellar reputation no more. Being notorious for their bad behavior and political imprudence, they further have no shame about having poor attendance at various plenary sessions. Marzuki Alie, the House speaker, even responded perplexedly to this and dubbed it shameful, noting lawmakers’ extremely poor performance in passing bills.
Their tendency to skip meetings at the House is a disgrace. Low attendance is usually a final-year or campaign period phenomenon, but now it is taking place in the first year of the House’s sitting.
Seen from data on legislators’ attendance at plenary sessions released by the House Secretariat, National Mandate Party (PAN) lawmakers’ attendance list took the lead with 96 percent from October to December 2009. The Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) and The National Awakening Party (PKB) came in last with 88.6 and 86.6 percent.
Between January and March 2010, the Democratic Party had the best attendance rate, at 91.1 percent, while the PKB and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) propped up the other end of the list at 78.3 percent and 79.9 percent, correspondingly.
The data obviously suggests the number of absentee lawmakers has increased within just two years. Such a chronic absenteeism has not simply triggered public criticism, but also a wake-up call from the House speaker and his deputy, Pramono Anung, pointing out how lawmakers terribly break up a trust from the inside.
Poor lawmaker attendance is only another nail in the coffin for nasty lawmakers, owing to three recurrent problems.
First, internal control mechanisms have long been absent in the House of Representatives. In point of fact, there has been a regulation in the House stipulating that legislators missing three straight plenary meetings are to be publicly denounced, and those missing six straight plenary sessions must be dismissed. The House’s Ethics Council is then authorized to execute the regulation. However, the Council has stalled at the moment because of internal strife.
The paralysis of the council has allowed lawmakers skipping parliamentary sessions to become more appalling, noting that the leadership of the House has not been in force. For example, it was common to see lawmakers rush into the chamber to sign the attendance sheet and rush out to catch planes to God knows where. Some sit in their offices doing nothing while plenary sessions are on.
It is true that showing up to plenary sessions does not directly translate to productivity. However, it is a measure of a legislator’s intent to serve his or her community. In this regard, the current House members could signal their good intentions toward their constituents by taking steps to make sure their attendance during deliberations remains high.
The House’s Ethics Council must be reauthorized to curb the absenteeism. Regulations are required to cover such things as setting a ceiling for the number of absences allowed, using electronic fingerprinting checks to make sure that only attending lawmakers can vote, salary cuts (as penalties), and the announcement of those regarded as truants to the public.
The House Secretariat and the House Ethics Council need to work together to publish the names of
legislators who frequently skip meetings.
Second, lawmakers often fail to manage conflicts of interest. Everybody knows lawmakers are always busy. Lawmakers have tons of work to do, not necessarily enacting laws. The lawmakers could be endeavoring to manage any moonlighting jobs; being commissioners of state-owned enterprises, advisors of social and sport organizations; and many others.
To the worst degree, businesspeople happening to be lawmakers also strive to build connections to improve their business.
Under such circumstances, it is no wonder their primary duty as legislators has been put on the back burner, failing to turn up to plenary sessions to enact laws that ensure that the basic rights of the people, as laid out in the 1945 Constitution, are protected. Despite the fact some lawmakers might have double duties in the House, serving on oversight commissions or panels, it should not be an excuse for absences.
This conflict of interest should be addressed with the intention of restoring the best priorities of lawmakers. Their work should be moved to the front burner in order to meet constituents’ demands and do away with personal benefits. Their firm commitment to prioritizing the best interests of their constituents can only be proven when they stop “moonlighting” and start “lawmaking” to the full.
Third, human resources remain poor in the House. It is disappointing that ambitious political adventurers and opportunists outnumber enlightening intellectuals in parliament. This situation has given birth to rotten lawmakers in charge of soaring public distrust.
A high attendance rate among lawmakers should be paralleled with significant contributions to particular bills. What is the point of them showing up to plenary sessions if they do not say a thing?
In addition, poor human resource will likely support a mix of political bickering and poor appreciation of intellectuals, with many lawmakers contriving to get their names on attendance lists even when they are not physically present at meetings. Trading solely upon their attendance level without taking into account their achievements (such as fulfilling their targets and holding the government accountable) is equal to toying with superficial professionalism.
The writer is a lecturer at Andalas University, Padang, and a graduate of the University of Canberra, Australia.
