2045

When dreams of Indonesia in 2030 began to get popular three or four years ago, there was a proposal for another milestone: why not imagine the face of Indonesia in 2045? There was then an awakening, as people began to imagine and pin their hopes and think about what life will look like in Indonesia when the nation reaches 100 years old.

Dreaming is certainly not a crime: in 2045, we can expect per capita income of at least US$10,000 per year and many citizens living in well-managed housing estates with two cars in the garage. It looks just like Americans and their “American dream”.

It is also not a mistake to dream that, in 2045, our nation will be strong ideologically, politically, economically, socially, culturally and militarily, as the values of Pancasila have been successfully instilled in all aspects and in every breath of life in our nation. We can also dream that the national political scene will be civilized and corruption will be absent. We dream of people living in harmony with strong social discipline and fearsome military power. Indonesia, at last, has become a major player in geopolitics.

On the other hand, it is not impossible for these dreams to be distracted by wayward interruptions. As 2045 will only arrive 28 years from now, the generation of Indonesia that rule then may have its own portrait of how life should be. With their own perceptions of prevailing problems and challenges, don’t they have the right to have their own ideas and dreams? As such, what is the relevance of the dreams of today’s generation, who have their own dreams of Indonesia in 2045 based on their own perceptions and worldview?

A national goal and state institutions

As a generation that connects the past and the future, it is understandable for us to introduce to our children the concepts of the aspirations of our national independence as well as the dreams of our founding fathers. No matter what framework may be suitable for the nation in 2045, all of it must still stand on the dreams stated as our National Goal in the 1945 Constitution: “…to form a government of the state of Indonesia which shall protect all the people of Indonesia and all the independence and the land that has been struggled for, and to improve public welfare, to educate the life of the people and to participate toward the establishment of a world order based on freedom, perpetual peace and social justice…”

Reminding others of this dream is clearly necessary. However, it will be more responsible if we also guide them and pass on to them the proper mediums and institutions to help them work well. Therefore, the question is: is what we have today adequate?

Regarding the first element in the national goal, namely to form a government of the state of Indonesia, is the structure and order of state institutions sufficient after four constitutional amendments? Many see the national goal as nothing more than a detailing of four specific goals and yet they neglect the instruments necessary to achieve these goals. If so, how can we ever reach these goals? How can we achieve these dreams without the government of the state of Indonesia as the essential tool? All discussions on this national goal start from issues of state institutions. The question is: is the prevailing structure and order of state institutions good enough to provide stability of government and policies?

The presidential system in our current system of government is becoming more shackled by regulations on political parties and presidential elections, which in turn consumes too much energy for a stability that seems only superficial. The presence of numerous conceptions of deliberative and representative bodies are not only conceptually vague but have never been effective in practice. Amid growing radicalism and the ghost of communism, efforts to strengthen and ground Pancasila as an ideology, a foundation of the state and a national outlook on life is invisible (if not non-existent). Dynamics in politics and ideology are high. But who is in charge of managing them?

Such issues are also apparent in the second element of the national goal, namely the four goals that are the duty of the government of Indonesia. When the massive process to realize these four goals is interrelated with comprehensiveness and continuity in planning, a question has been left hanging for long.

Without the presence of an instrument called the State Policy Guideline (GBHN) in the past, how can we ensure that our National Long-Term Development Plan (RPJP) and the accompanying National Mid-Term Development Plan (RPJM) will not change every five years? Amid a presidential election mechanism focusing on promises of programs during the election campaign, continuous amendments (whether they are called adjustments, improvements or any other name) of RPJP and RPJM is not out of the question.

Time is constantly moving forward. Every era has different challenges. Therefore, different views on priorities and sequencing of development should not be a problem. But, great themes are necessary in a national roadmap in order to really make sure that we understand what we must do and achieve and when each achievement should be obtained in each phase. This will be helpful in maintaining the continuity of the direction and movement of our development efforts. More than just an assurance, transparency on this issue will also facilitate mobilization and improve public participation in national strength.

Or perhaps another mindset should be developed. Perhaps continuity is not that important. Perhaps what is more important is the presence of a higher and more advanced standards of living. Each of the four national goals are maintained as directions, but how to implement them is left to perception and interpretation. Each era has its own unique values and challenges. Is this perhaps a new mindset that we need?

Constitutional amendments needed?

There have been many discussions on these issues. Why there has been no good response is another matter. It is not impossible that this is related to the opinion held by some that there are groups who are still reluctant to face changes. Perhaps such opinions are true. However, neglecting the bravery to observe and improve one’s shortcomings is no better. It is even more so if this neglect is sourced from another orientation that government leadership is only about fulfilling election campaign promises and government policies, in effect, change every five years.

If so, then 2045 will signify nothing more than a 100-year anniversary of our independence. Nothing more, nothing less. Dreams and hopes of a more modern and advanced life still exist but connecting them to the dreams of our founding fathers will not be relevant.

The end of the question on the adequacy of these two elements have emerged many times although it seemed that it made some people uncomfortable. Thoughts on the readiness of these means and institutions often lead to this question: should the 1945 Constitution be amended again? It is general knowledge that the effects of the prevailing four amendments to the Constitution have been much-debated. Some reject them and some wish for amendments that serve only their interests. Some wish for a total overhaul, and yet some other wishes for a return to the original 1945 Constitution. Everyone has their own arguments. Certainly, putting any of these plans into actions means more great work ahead and also the potentialfor new furors.

However, if the need to reorganize the structure and order of our state institutions as the administrator of the government of the state is deemed necessary, then what is the best solution? If amending the 1945 Constitution is set aside as an option, could the president take an instrumental approach by initiating improvements of laws on political parties, elections, deliberative and representative bodies, regional government and central-regional government relations?

The veil of negativity that seems to envelop the relation between the president and the political parties that support him can be set aside for now. Just look at the positive side that with huge support from political parties, the president should not have any difficulty in his political struggle to rearrange state institutions through regulatory amendments. Similar points of view between the president and supporting political parties on the need for preparedness and for rearrangement of state institutions (especially those related to the president’s functions and authorities) and on the collective responsibility for the nation’s future, should have enabled this.

However, on the contrary, it is also possible that this is difficult if the support of political parties is merely dependent on power and not on the president’s performance and the future. If the political parties adopt the “Ligna law: once you have your seats, you’ll be reluctant to leave”, things will get even more difficult. If the latter is true, then it is also true that the order of our state institutions is not beneficial for the nation and therefore must be rearranged.

What is the prospect, then, of resolving these issues? Only God knows. Whatever the resolution is, 2045 may seem like a long way from today. However, from the perspective of the life of a nation, a period of 28 years will pass by quickly.

BAMBANG KESOWO

Advisory Board Chief, National Resilience Institute Alumni Association