(Tempo English) House Divided, Election Fiasco

12/12/2018

The fiasco of the voting of chairman position of the commission of the House of Representatives (DPR) that led to the creation of the so-called the ‘rival DPR Speakers’ is very not productive and regrettable.

If politicians at the House of Representatives (DPR) do not immediately reach an agreement, the dispute can pose problems to the government led by Joko Widodo – Jusuf Kalla.

In the near future, there are many agenda that must be solved by both the government and the DPR. In January next year, the government and the DPR must deliberate on the Government Regulation in Lieu of the Law on Regional Head Election.

Then in March this year, the deliberation of the 2015 State Budget Draft was already waiting.

The “winning-losing” concept continued to become the guidance of the politicians in the DPR, President Jokowi would find difficulties implementing their priority programs.

The sweeping movement exhibited by Pro-Prabowo coalition in sweeping the positions of Speaker of the DPR obviously ignored the political realities in the society. At this year’s legislative election, the people decided the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) as the winner. Later on, the majority of the voters also voted for Joko Widodo as the President.

Ironically, due to the failure to lobby the Jokowi-pro coalition, the Jokowi-pro coalition did not even get one chairman position in the DPR.

After grabbing five chairman positions of the DPR, the Pro-Prabowo coalition would also sweep all the positions of chairman of all commissions in the DPR.

The root of this fiasco cannot be separated from the failure of the coalition supporting Jokowi in safeguarding the issuance of Law on the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), DPR, the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), and the Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) (Law on MD3).

In the previous two general elections, the position of DPR Speaker automatically becomes the rights of the party winning the election proportionally.

Through the Law on MD3, the positions of DPR Speakers are attained with a package system.

It is difficult to deny that Law on MD3 is indeed formulated for the interest of the majority of those formulating the law, not for the people in general.

The fact is Law on MD3 was issued passed one day before the presidential election, when the Pro-Prabowo coalition tried to prepare for their total failure.

Law like this clearly violates political ethics.

So far, the package system regulated by the Law on MD3 proved that it did not only ignite political battlers based on the ‘winning-losing’ concept.

Room for discussion was closed. Biased agreement could only happen among members of the same coalition. With the opposing coalition, there is hardly any room to share opinions.

The package system has also robbed the autonomy rights of every member of the DPR.

The legislators can no longer vote for their leaders based on their conscience.

Even if the DPR Speaker is determined through closed voting mechanism, members of the DPR can only vote for candidates appointed by the fraction.

As a result, the application of the "one man one vote" system also loses its significance.

In order not to prolong the dispute, there are other choices. Both sides must sit together to pave the way for discussion.

Sticking to the each position would only be a waste of energy. We must bear in mind that in our governance system, the position of DPR is not a ‘monster’ who can pose barriers to the government every time.

The legislative body should have been a healthy balancing power so that the executive can work and work.

JejakParlemen

Berita Terkait

Kategori Berita

(Tempo English) House Divided, Election Fiasco