TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsThe fifth amendment: A path back to the people?
In the previous four constitutional amendments, many articles were written in haste, compromises were born of fear and decisions were made in backrooms shielded from public scrutiny.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Debut delivery: President Prabowo Subianto makes a gesture of greeting to members of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) on Aug. 15, 2025, as he mounts the stage to delivers his first State of the Nation Address at the Senayan Legislative Complex in Central Jakarta. (AFP/Pool/Bay Ismoyo)
T
here is a familiar pattern that haunts this republic: We take a step toward the future, yet the shadows of the past keep tugging at our coattails. It feels like renovating an old house, repainting the walls, installing brighter lights and trimming the garden, only to stumble again over the same cracked tiles that were never truly fixed.
Our constitution is not much different: amended four times and debated endlessly, yet still riddled with dark corners that hobble our democracy.
In the early days of the reform movement, the first four amendments were drafted in a state of emergency. The country had just emerged from a long authoritarian tunnel. In that urgency, we reshaped the political system like architects forced to finish a building design overnight.
The intentions were noble, of course. But good intentions do not always produce sturdy structures. Many articles were written in haste, compromises were born of fear and decisions were made in backrooms shielded from public scrutiny.
The late administrative law professor Prajudi Atmosudirdjo once said that a constitution is the mirror of a nation’s soul, mind and culture. When that mirror is cracked, the reflection becomes fragmented. Only after two decades of Reformasi do we see those fractures clearly, some inherited from the past, others carved by the subtle hands of power working quietly between the lines.
Now, as the debate over a fifth amendment resurfaces, two currents emerge: those who want to return to the original 1945 constitution, and those who insist on continuing the amendment process. The former longs for the perceived stability of the past. The latter believes a constitution must evolve. Yet both often miss the essential question: What kind of republic do we want to build?
We know what returning to the original 1945 Constitution entails: no presidential term limits, weak oversight and power that grows without constraints. The question is whether we want to repeat a system that twice endangered the republic.
