P

resident Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo may have started a new tradition last week when he delivered three speeches, rather than the usual two, in commemorating Indonesia'€™s 70th Independence Day.

In addition to the State of the Nation address and the budget speech, he read out a brief annual report card for all eight high state institutions: the presidency, the People'€™s Consultative Assembly (MPR), the House of Representatives, the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court and the Judicial Commission.

The extra speech seemed like an arduous and unnecessary task for the president to give on his first Independence Day ceremony, but he took up the challenge and delivered a good message that emphasized the need to make the presidential system of government work.

Jokowi used the opportunity to appeal to all eight state institutions to forge solidarity with one another to strengthen the presidential system as each goes about carrying out its constitutional tasks.

Describing sovereign Indonesia as being in a state of '€œwar'€ to win peace, prosperity and happiness for the people, Jokowi said: '€œVictory to ennoble the people can only happen if all elements in the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, particularly, the state institutions, are united and do not fall into their respective egoistic thinking. Together, we must strengthen our political sovereignty, economic independence and the character of our culture.'€

Many people understandably missed the message about the importance of the presidential system of government since it was one of three speeches delivered on that day. But the speech was a reaffirmation of our existing system, with all its flaws and challenges.

The task at hand is to ensure that the system delivers to the public what it was designed to do, and in spite of the compliments that the President gave regarding the performance of the different institutions, he implied that each was still too busy entertaining its own interests. We all know that these institutions frequently lock horns and attack and undermine one another. This has been particularly true in the past year.

But that'€™s the price of democracy when power is thoroughly devolved among different institutions.

This is why President Jokowi should have gone a little further than simply reaffirming Indonesia'€™s commitment to the presidential system. He should have called on all state institutions, along with the rest of the nation, to make presidential democracy work.

The term '€œpresidential democracy'€ is the one that should distinguish present day Indonesia from the previous systems that prevailed during much of Sukarno '€˜s rule and for virtually all of Soeharto'€™s years. They were also called presidential systems, and in the case of Soeharto, he did improve the wellbeing of the people, but the systems were hardly democratic.

In the post-Soeharto years, Indonesia has gone through a series of constitutional amendments to ensure greater democratic checks and balances in government, and to prevent a return to the dictatorial systems of the days gone by.

The eight institutions, along with a few additional state commissions such as the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM), have been assigned their respective roles to ensure a functioning democratic government under the presidential system.

It is by no means perfect and many analysts of political systems say that the presidential system is inherently more unstable and far less flexible compared to the parliamentary system of government. But Indonesia for now is in no hurry to look at the alternative, especially since memories of the 1950s, when one parliamentary government was replaced by another in a matter of months, still haunt many people.

The current system of government can be described as essentially presidential but with some parliamentary components in it. The legislative body, for example, has so much power that it can hamper or undermine the work of the executive branch.

But it is a system that has evolved through a process of trial and error for 70 years of independence. Most of the institutions, with their new powers and authorities, were the result of extensive and heated debates during the constitutional amendments process in 1999-2002.

What we have today is a presidential and a multi-party system of government.

All the four elections held in the post-Soeharto years point to the need for the elected president to form a coalition government involving some of the political parties in the House to be able govern effectively. The last election in 2014 even resulted in Jokowi'€™s executive administration not controlling the House, something that his predecessor Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono never experienced.

Today, the situation is probably more unstable than before.

It is a situation redolent of the near dysfunctional government under US President Barack Obama who has had to fight against intransigent opposition in a Republican-controlled Congress. But perhaps a more relevant example for Indonesia is the experience of Latin American countries that also follow a presidential system with a multiparty character.

Indonesia can take comfort in the fact that its current system has stood the test of four elections and has remained democratic, but it is wrong to take things for granted. History illustrates that many new democracies have been short-lived and in time reverted back to authoritarianism. This, in turn, teaches us that there is still a lot of work ahead of us.

Let'€™s improve the system by all means, and, as President Jokowi appealed for in his speech, let'€™s see more solid cooperation between the different state institutions. But above all, let'€™s never lose sight of democracy.