DPD and the struggle for power

A request from the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) to amend the Constitution -- to give the body more power -- was defeated in the House of Representatives earlier this year. Yet, similar requests are likely to surface again in the future.

The reason behind such an amendment, however, is arguably just another move to grab a piece of the power and wealth cake usually associated with political positions.

The basic premise of the suggestion for the fifth constitutional amendment is indeed important. The creation of another political faction will create a distribution of power that will avoid the usurpation of power into one legislative body. Yet, the Indonesian political system and its processes need to be taken into consideration.

There are problems with DPD's constitutional amendment bid. The first problem lies in the amendment process itself; it is too simple, as it requires the People's Legislative Assembly (MPR) to approve amendments without direct public approval.

Other countries adopt a far more complicated method to allow amendments to their constitutions. The U.S., for example, requires constitutional amendments be ratified by at least two thirds of all states before they can become part of the Constitution. A representative-only process in a Constitutional amendment could be detrimental for a republic, and therefore, should be avoided.

The second problem is the effectiveness and efficiency of such amendments. A constitutional amendment that includes the DPD would automatically change the nature of the legislature into a bicameral system. A bicameral system, allowing further checks and balances, would also involve further power struggles in politics.

In a struggling nation like Indonesia, this would only hinder growth and development. Policies would move much slower and more "grease" would be required for political machines to allow bills to be passed.

The "grease" for political machines usually equates to bribery. The Transparency International organization reported last year that Indonesia's legislative body was the most corrupt entity in the nation. Who can ensure that bigger problems will not surface with the existence of another legislative body in the form of the DPD?

In politics, local representation could mean more pork barrel spending, or spending on pet projects to gain constituents' support to stay in power, regardless of the effectiveness or efficiency of the project, which in the end will cost Indonesia's economy.

Another "problem" lies in Indonesia's history, which has repeatedly shown that power and political struggles almost often result in instability and have the potential to cripple the economy.

The DPD should prove its "worth" by focusing on local or provincial issues. A good example would be the recent report on trillions of rupiahs of state money allocated to regional administrations in the form of Bank of Indonesia bonds, instead of being well-invested into the local economies and public services.

Encouraging and ensuring reforms and the practice of good governance in local administrations would also help local or provincial governments.

Besides, the raison d'etre of the DPD is to help and improve the quality of governance in local entities. It would be hard for the nation to put trust and the power of decision-making in the hands of those who might further abuse it. Trust and legitimacy is something that has to be "achieved," not "ascribed" or given.

Democracy should not be rushed. It is a process that requires maturity, patience and a grander vision for the republic.

James Madison, a founding father of the U.S. once noted that however large it (a republic) may be, they (representatives) must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude.

Additional legislators are not necessary at this point in time. Some people still believe in Indonesian politics. Others, however, tend to be more suspicious of actions that lead to more power and political struggles in the nation.

In order to strengthen democracy, we should focus on reforming our bureaucratic bodies to achieve better professionalism, better accountability, independence from political interference and reforms in the judicial body. Democracy is not only about politics -- it is wrong to equate democracy with raw politics and winning by numbers.

The writer is a Ph.D candidate at the Center for Public Administration and Policy, in the Office of Capital Assets and Financial Management, at Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, the U.S. He can be reached at gkusuma@vt.edu.