Presidential System
Like a ship that’s sailing or docked, every state system has an authority that acts as an “anchor” so that the ship is not carried away by the tide but moored at a location at will.
In a monarchical system, the captain of the governance ship is the prime minister but the anchor of the ship is the king or queen. The PM is the head of government while the king or queen is the head of state. The PM sets the sailing course for a particular destination and regulates the duties and responsibilities of the crew. However, when a storm hits, the ship is anchored at a secure location so that it does not sink. Under such analogy, in a monarchy the king or queen does not have an executive function but a moral or symbolic one, which is very important to maintaining political integration and balance.
Indonesia adopts a presidential system not a parliamentary system, meaning the president has a double job, as the head of government and the head of state. As the head of government, he is the highest executive responsible for the government\'s performance along with the Cabinet. As the head of state he is the guarantor or “anchor” for the political integration and balance of his country.
In governance, the political balance is determined by the Trias Politica principle, or three independent powers in politics consisting of separation of job and authority between the executive as the executor in the government, legislative as the maker of laws and control of the government and judicial body as the one that must solve conflict in the separation of power and decide the penalties for violations of the law.
In the state system, however, the balance of politics is determined primarily by the balance of various political institutions. The balance of politics is another term for the balance of power while the balance of power is primarily the balance between political institutions.
Learning from Thailand: the need for balance of politics
The balance of politics as the balance between political institutions is so important for a country that Britain is willing to finance the life of its queen and her family and Thailand is willing to finance the life of its king and his family. Because at crucial times when there is a political storm between political institutions, the king or the queen will play the role of anchor for the ship or a factor of integrity and authority to guarantee national unity. There is a belief that the king can do no wrong because he is not involved in the government and is free from political rivalry and he is therefore accepted by those who struggle for power.
Our neighbor Thailand is recognized for its economic development and is famous for its agro industry (from papaya to chicken). For years, the country has been a “battle ground” between the civilian government and the military, which launched a coup against the legitimate government. For a long time, Thailand was ruled by an absolute monarchy. But a revolution broke out in 1932, which ended the ancient regime and replaced it with socialism ideology supported by educated people. It is unique in that during revolution, the monarchy was not scrapped but modified from an absolute to constitutional monarchy.
Democracy, which blew fresh air into Thai politics since 1932, was interrupted in 1947, when the civilian government under PM Pridi Banomyong was toppled by Gen. Pibulsongram, who was considered to be a collaborator of Japan during World War II. He reigned for 10 years as a military ruler and in 1957 was toppled by Gen. Sarit Thanarat, who brought Thailand under the shadow of United States domination and hegemony. During these power struggles, the Thai people and country looked at their king, Kinga Bhumibhol The Rama IX, who reigned for long time and became a factor that guaranteed the sustainability of Thailand until his death a few months ago.
The role of the king and Buddhist monks is crucial in preventing civil war in the country. The Thai king is not only the balancer between civil and military power but also the mediator between the conservative power and the progressives who want change and reform. Thai writers, intellectuals and authors often get protection from the king even though they are seen as enemies of the ruling regime.
Not only the king but also other royalty often become pioneers of reform. One example in Thai history is Prince Sitthiporn Kridakara, a nobleman who served as a high officer at the palace of King Rama VI and had good relations with the king. Ultimately, he relinquished his post and became a farmer in southern Thailand. He promoted the slogan "only if the educated people in Thailand would become farmers and only if the farmers in Thailand were educated enough that they could not easily be exploited will the country have a bright future."
His view was shared by a doctor, Prawase Wasi, who paid attention to social liberation in the country. He followed Prince Sitthiporn Kridakara as a model and urged unemployed university graduates, around 200,000 at that time, to become farmers. If educated people only looked for jobs with the government or foreign companies, it was feared that the urban elites would always collaborate with those in power and multinational companies while leaving the farmers and agriculture behind. He also campaigned for the importance of herbal medicine. He said the health of the Thai people would be achievable by 2000 if the people relied not only on Western medicine and hospitals. He taught university graduates to pay attention to herbal plantations that must be protected from deforestation.
The development of the Thai agro industry has been supported with agriculture technology and the state’s attention to agriculture. However, there was a strong social movement that gave an important place to agriculture in the development of Thailand. This movement was pioneered by noblemen and educated people with the king\'s protection. This example shows that the king as the head of state could do many things for his country even though he had no executive power.
The struggle of the government and the people of Thailand for their welfare was immortalized by poet Angkarn Kalayanapong. In my translation, the poem reads: Who dare to trade the sky and the ocean?/the miraculous creation is the world of ours/parts of the body will get space/at the final hours between the earth and the sky. – We are no owner of cloud and air/or sky or earth and its elements/Man never created the moon or the sun/nor an atom in a piece of sand.
Head of state needs to intervene
The government of Indonesia, in theory, also adopts Trias Politica of the French philosopher, Montesquieu, whose principle and book about the spirit of law is mandatory reading in the study of law and politics. According to this theory, the executive-legislative relation is defined as the relation between the executive duties and implementation and the supervisory duties. This means the supervisor is not allowed to be involved in the execution so that the supervisory duty is not partisanship. In practice in Indonesia, there is a tendency for the House of Representatives to expand its power into the executive sphere. Many appointments of executive positions must be made with the consent of the House or officiated by the House through confirmation hearings.
As an example, the appointment of the Indonesian Military (TNI) commander and the National Police chief by the president must be approved by the House while in fact the TNI commander and Police chief are executive positions. So are the positions of ambassadors who are appointed by the president. They have to get House approval while in fact the duty of the ambassadors is to represent the president and the country in foreign countries.
The candidates of chairman and leaders of the Financial Services Authority (OJK), the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) and the General Elections Commission (KPU) are also nominated by the president and then selected by the House. There are many more examples, but the point is, is that there is no clear boundary between the duties of the executive and the legislative body in the government, which officially follows the presidential system. We can ask different questions: Do the election of House speaker and deputy speakers require presidential approval? Do the election of House commission chairpersons and deputy chairpersons require presidential approval?
In a strict separation of duty, the president can directly appoint the TNI commander and the police chief without House approval. If the TNI commander or the police chief does not perform well, the House can ask for the president’s accountability. The fact that the House intends to expand its power is something we can understand. The question is whether a House with more power could improve its achievements and its members\' roles as representatives of the people.
The issue now is the tension between the House and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) resulting from the establishment of a House Inquiry Committee. Tension has heightened as people are divided between those who support the House inquiry committee and those who support the KPK. President Jokowi has been asked to solve the problem. However, sticking to the Trias Politica, the President has argued that the matter is in the hands of the House and he does not want to interfere despite growing public demand for him to do so.
In this issue, it is worth noting that the president of Indonesia is the head of the government and the executive body as well as the head of state. As the head of government he has executive powers. As the head of state, he serves as a factor of integration and the guardian of the political balance in his country. If there is imbalance or disharmony between the political institutions, the head of state must take action by playing the role of anchor so that the ship does not get carried away by the waves created by certain political parties. It is easy to understand because there must be a person who is responsible for maintaining the unity of the country and the nation. In the case of Indonesia, the man is the president and no one else!
It is good to underline that balance of power is primarily the balance between political institutions. Therefore, as the head of state, our president has the power to solve such conflicts to ensure political integration and the sustainability of the state and not be disrupted by political parties. If President Jokowi did that, surely he would not get the support of the House. But he would win the support of the people, who would gradually come to feel that the House does not represent them. The president would also be seen as having a sense of the crucial situation that threatens the unity of the nation, the prosperity of the people and the safety of the country.
IGNAS KLEDEN
Sociologist; Chairman of Indonesian Community for Democracy