Behind the tumultuous tension of the electoral campaign are two fundamental issues that undermine our political resilience. First is the weakness of our ideological vision, which should hone our rationale to zero in on the weakest link in the chain. Second is the waning sense of national brotherhood that builds mutual trust and a will to unite and share. Without the reason of statehood and the sense of nationhood, politics merely becomes a conflict of interests for short-term gains that sacrifices long-term fundamental issues.
Electoral campaigns no longer provide a contest of visions, especially on how to resolve the nation’s fundamental issues. Elites talk about unicorns and research funding, but seem clueless about how to develop science and technology in strategic ways that will encourage innovations in productive sectors. They bitterly complain about the flood of imports, but do not formulate visions to develop economic independence and national productivity. They pledge to eradicate corruption, but do not construct regulations for democratic institutions (elections) and government, which are catalysts of corruption. They talk about the threats of social disruption and divergence, but do not conceptualize political education for the future.
ANTARA/RONY MUHARMAN
Presidential candidate Number 02, Prabowo Subianto, greets Riau residents as he arrives at the Pekanbaru Youth Center in Riau on Wednesday (13/03/2019). In his campaign, Prabowo asked for support for himself and running mate Sandiaga Uno in presidential election in April, while conveying a message to all supporters to live in peace and maintain mutual respect despite different choices.
The issues are becoming more complex and fundamental, but our literacy and responses are growing shallower. As politics focuses more on increasing popularity and ensuring instant gratification, national development becomes patchwork and reactionary, like firefighting. Latent problems that are more fundamental and constant are often neglected.
Every political system must have a seatbelt. Weak visions in ad hoc political leadership remind us of the importance of a directive guideline for development that is planned, comprehensive, integrated and continuous. Such a guideline would lay down the tracks for development. The country will remain on a steady course towards development, no matter who the train driver is and whatever their tendencies.
In the mindset of our founding fathers as stipulated in the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution, Indonesia’s efforts to achieve its national goals must be based on three fundamental consensus: Pancasila as the foundational philosophy, the Constitution as the foundational law/norm and the Broad Outlines of State Policy (GBHN) as the foundational policy.
Pancasila contains philosophical principles, the Constitution contains normative principles and the GBHN contains directive principles. Pancasila’s philosophical values are abstract; the Constitution’s articles also talk primarily about big norms without any guidelines on institutionalizing them.
TIM MEDIA PDIP
President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo (center left) and general chairperson of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) Megawati Soekarnoputri (center right) attend the PDI-P National Coordination Meeting at the party’s central executive board office in Jakarta on Wednesday (13/03/2019).
Therefore, a set of guiding principles containing basic directives are needed to help us institutionalize Pancasila and our constitutional values in public institutions, for guiding state administrators in formulating and implementing development policies in a guided, planned and integrated manner. As a directive principle, the GBHN must also provide legislative guidance.
Some countries have constitutions that contain such directive principles. The constitutions of India and the Philippines, for instance, were inspired by the directive principles of social policies found in the Constitution of Ireland. The Irish constitution was established in 1937, before our founding fathers formulated the 1945 Constitution. Political thinkers on the caliber of Soepomo and Muhammad Yamin, who possessed erudition and deep concerns regarding constitutional issues, were surely aware of it. There must be a reason why the 1945 Constitution contains no specific articles on directive principles.
First was the issue of insufficient time, so Soepomo could only include an explanatory chapter in the Constitution at a later date, which contained directive principles to a certain extent. Second, the GBHN is far more expansive and elaborate than the Constitution in accommodating directive principles. Third, the GBHN must be more dynamic than the Constitution in responding to the changing times. In his statement at the Indonesian Independence Preparation Investigative Assembly (BPUPKI) on July 15, 1945, Soepomo said, “In terms of social dynamics, the People’s Consultative Assembly must observe all that is occurring and all currents of the time once every five years to determine the guidelines to be used later.”
By diving into our founding fathers’ original intentions and state practices, we can conclude that the “state policy” must comprise two guidelines: an ideological guideline and a strategic-technocratic guideline.
An ideological guideline contains fundamental principles that guide us in incorporating state philosophy and constitutional articles at every aspect and level of legislation and development policies. A strategic guideline, on the other hand, contains comprehensive, integrated and directed patterns of development planning for long-term implementation. It is created gradually and sustainably through the consideration of sectoral and regional priorities.
Such a directive guideline will allow political leaders to focus more on building supporting frameworks, forming credible and appropriate working teams and determining priority frameworks for development. A team of experts from various disciplines, institutions, regions and stakeholders will generate the vision of a long-term development railway as input for the People’s Consultative Assembly to issue decrees.
The presidential debates will no longer be about visions and missions, but instead about development priorities as derived from the directive guideline. This way, an administration’s synchronic dimension (innovations) will stand on a diachronic foundation (railway) towards our national development goals (stations).
