October 4, 2024
JAKARTA – Smiling faces were all that marked the inauguration of the 580 House of Representatives members for the 2024-2029 term on Tuesday. Forget the Feb. 14 race, which saw them fight tooth and nail for the coveted legislative seats they now occupy.
The semblance of a cordial, peaceful atmosphere was well maintained when the newly installed lawmakers unanimously reelected Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) politician Puan Maharani as the House speaker. Puan’s return to the top job of the legislative body ended months of speculation about the Onward Indonesia Coalition (KIM) under president-elect Prabowo Subianto pushing for revision of the Legislative Institutions (MD3) Law, that would have cost the PDI-P the speaker post as it did in 2014.
The plan to amend the law came to the fore as the PDI-P did not follow in the footsteps of the NasDem Party, National Awakening Party (PKB) and Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), which opted to support Prabowo’s incoming government after fighting him in the presidential race by nominating opposition figure Anies Baswedan. The three parties have proven their allegiance by annulling their nomination of Anies for the Jakarta gubernatorial election.
The PDI-P, too, moved closer to picking Anies as its candidate for the Jakarta election after the Constitutional Court relaxed the threshold for the number of legislative seats required to nominate a candidate, until the dramatic turnaround on Aug. 26. Rumors had it that Anies’ nomination by the PDI-P would precipitate the amendment of the MD3 Law.
Under the existing MD3 Law, the PDI-P is entitled to the House speaker post for winning the most legislative seats in the Feb. 14 elections. The success, the third in a row for the PDI-P, is a consolation achievement after losing the presidential race to Prabowo, who owed his landslide win in part to President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo. It was Jokowi’s choice of Prabowo as successor that angered the PDI-P, and the former allies have remained unreconciled.
Prabowo has openly expressed his intention to bring the PDI-P into his big-tent KIM coalition, while the party has remained silent about its stance vis-a-vis the incoming government. If plans for a meeting between Megawati and Prabowo materialize, the two will perhaps talk about, even agree upon, the matter.
But even if Prabowo and Megawati agree to disagree, doubts remain whether the PDI-P will play an opposition role like it did during the 10-year presidency of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. One of the reasons is the warm relationship between Prabowo and Megawati. The two contested the 2009 presidential race as a team, only to lose to the incumbent, Yudhoyono.
Some in the PDI-P inner circle even suggest that Megawati has no grudge against Prabowo, only with Jokowi, which is why the much-awaited meeting between the bosses of the two largest parties in the country is most likely to happen soon. The encounter will be good for the nation, but only if the two refrain from horse trading that will compromise democracy.
As the biggest party in the House, the PDI-P faces mounting public expectations that it can keep democracy on fire through its critical views of government policies. The party will ensure checks and balances mechanisms work, albeit not in full force, if it manages to resist the tempting sweet taste of power.
We have seen how Jokowi started his administration with minority support at the House in 2014, but gradually consolidated his power to control the legislative power in the name of political stability. But this only resulted in a dictatorship of the majority, which reduced the House to a rubber stamp for the government-sponsored legislation that in many cases did not necessarily reflect the people’s wishes, such as the revised Criminal Code and Corruption Eradication Commission Law and the Job Creation Law.
Prabowo, who has identified his government with the continuity of the Jokowi administration, will inherit greater control over the legislature. The PDI-P’s entry into the ruling coalition would throw Indonesia back to the New Order era, when “round democracy”, or zero opposition, was championed and “oval democracy” was a taboo.