Lawmaker Benny Kabur Harman of the Democratic Party shook things up Tuesday when he said the country needed a fifth constitutional amendment, which would redefine the presidency.
“We need these amendments to clarify, for instance, the operational mechanisms of the presidency. The need to clearly define [such mechanisms] is requisite,” Benny said at the House of Representatives building in Jakarta.
Indonesia amended its Constitution four times between 1999 and 2002. These amendments were motivated by the 1998 reform movement spearheaded by students and activists.
The first and second amendments in 1999 and 2000 curtailed the executive powers of the president, especially in relation to legislature.
The third and fourth amendments in 2001 and 2002 transformed the relationships among certain state institutions, such as the Supreme Advisory Council, the Supreme Audit Agency and the Regional Representatives Council.
Benny, who is also the head of House Commission III on legal affairs, said the proposed fifth amendment would also discuss the possibility of extending the presidential tenure.
Last month, legislator Ruhut Sitompul of the Democratic Party broached this controversial topic, suggesting that the President could to run for a third term through a constitutional amendment.
His idea met strong criticism from observers and other lawmakers who said such a move would be a step backwards for Indonesia’s young democracy.
Meanwhile, legislator Gayus Lumbuun from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) disagreed with Benny, saying another constitutional amendment was unnecessary.
“In the case of our presidential system, I think the Constitution, including its amendments, has clearly defined it. Nothing needs to be changed,” he said.
Gayus said the problem with the Constitution was that legislators and state officials had not effectively implemented the previous four amendments.
He said it would be better if lawmakers centered the country’s democracy around substantive issues, not on procedural ones.
“I think it is more urgent for the lawmakers to eradicate poverty, or promote extensive job creation for the people, instead of mulling over how to change the presidential system,” Gayus said.
Gayus added that he suspected that the motive behind the fifth amendment proposal was “political”.
“This must have a certain political agenda,” he said.
He added that, as lawmakers, he and his colleagues were tasked with directing the Constitution toward the improvement of the people’s welfare.
“We need to get to grips with the reality this country is facing,” he said.
Donny Gahral Adian, a lecturer in philosophy at the University of Indonesia, shared similar views, saying the amendment plan was part of “an elitist agenda”.
“That plan doesn’t side with the people. It focuses solely on how to distribute powers to a number of state institutions,” Donny said, adding that the people would not benefit from amendments that would simply “redefine” the presidential system or functions of the Regional Representatives Council.
Donny added that a procedural democracy that allowed constitutional amendments not based on substantive matters would open the door for legislators to completely transform the Constitution itself.
Antonio Pradjasto, the executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Human Rights and Democracy, said constitutional amendments in general were solely aimed at transforming the patterns of power.
“The amendments we have now, for instance, changed such patterns from ‘executive-heavy’ to ‘legislative heavy’,” Antonio said. (tsy)
| 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|