T

he reform era, marked as it has been by political openness, has given ample room for Indonesians to promote democracy as a rule in the political life of the nation.

Soeharto's resignation on May 21, 1998 was a historic political moment in Indonesia.

After 32 years of the authoritarian New Order regime, Indonesia has gradually been transforming into a democracy.

However, after 15 years of transition from an authoritarian regime, democracy has not contributed significantly to people's lives. Democracy seems to have become the preserve of a handful of political elites.

Admittedly, the Indonesians in general are not yet able to place and treat democracy as they should. Democracy is still perceived as an empty space that can be filled freely.

Our democracy has therefore emerged as no more than a stage for political contest, which is filled with commotions and disturbances. Forcing one's will on others, freedom of expression that is exercised without responsibility and acts of vigilantism in the name of democracy are just a few examples of these commotions and disturbances.

It comes as no surprise that we may be cynical when witnessing the exercise of democracy and political practices in Indonesia.

Moreover, ideally, democracy cannot be interpreted as simply freedom to assemble, to unionize, to organize and to articulate or express aspirations.

Many commotions and disturbances that have characterized the journey of democracy in Indonesia have had serious consequences for the president who leads this country. It is not an easy job for the president of Indonesia due to this political brouhaha. This is because the political commotion and disturbance often disrupts the balance of the ship of state.

Further, the frequent political commotions and disturbances result in a lack of objectivity in perceiving and assessing the performance of a president, including President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. On many occasions, President Yudhoyono has said it is not easy to govern in an era in which euphoria is still in the air. In such a euphoric era a president will be prone to criticism and blame, but receive little appreciation.

In the wake of reform, political parties have emerged as the main pillars of Indonesian politics. Despite the fact that the country maintains a presidential system of government political parties wield great power in determining the national political dynamics.

In the past, the executive branch of power dominated political dynamics (executive heavy), but in this reform era, the House of Representatives holds greater power (legislative heavy). This is a political reality that was not intended when the nation amended the 1945 Constitution as part of reform.

After the fourth constitutional amendment, there has been a paradigm change that has led directly toward reinforcing the presidential system. The basic principle of the system is that the basis of legitimacy of a president comes from the people and not from the representative body.

As a result, the implementation of a presidential system is typified with direct election of the national leader by the people. Direct election is intended to present a democratic and representative leader based on the people's choice as well as to reduce vote buying.

The logical consequence is that the legislative branch does not have the right to choose and ask for the president's accountability report. In other words, the 1945 Constitution, after the fourth amendment, contradicts the original 1945 Constitution that gave great power to the House as the legislative branch to determine the 'fate' of a president.

In case of a breach of the law implicating the president, the House may call for an impeachment but the verdict rests with the Constitutional Court.

The executive and legislative branches stand equal therefore, they cannot overrule each other. The two are independent and carry out the checks-and-balances mechanism within the constitutional frame.

Another basic principle of the presidential system is that the president holds the highest power in the executive branch. There is no other political institution that holds a higher position than the president, except the people.

Ideally, electing the president directly should enable the executive branch to carry out executive tasks in serving the public effectively because the legitimacy of the president comes directly from the people. However, the contemporary political reality shows that even though the president is chosen directly by the people, he is often forced to accommodate various interests of the parties that hold seats in the legislative branch. It is indubitable that the presidential system in the multi-party context currently creates some complexities.

In Presidentialism, Multipartism and Democracy: The Difficult Combination, Scott Mainwaring shows that the combination of presidential system and multi-party system implies that the absence of power of a majority political party ruling the legislature potentially causes political deadlock.

This will then give political parties the opportunity to 'disturb' the president. The president is then forced to seek a consensus and compromise with the legislative body and therefore is susceptible to transactional politics where relationships among elites are established on top of pragmatism, not on common ideals or political platforms.

In the long run, this will surely undermine democratic life and the future of the presidential system. The existence of an effective government may not be realized in the near future. This is the major anomaly in the presidential system as a result of political reform.

The writer is a political researcher at the Habibie Center, Jakarta.