M. ALI MUHARAM
Deconstructing Policy Direction Amidst Geopolitical Uncertainty
The current existence of the Indonesian nation is confronted with complex fluctuations in foreign policy, a profound disconnection in the public sense of justice, and an ontological disorientation regarding the essence of humanity. This phenomenon triggers a fundamental discourse concerning the nation’s teleological direction: where does our collective purpose lead?
For legal scholars and political scientists, this discourse specifically refers to the present state of our constitutionalism. This inquiry is not merely rhetorical but a sacred investigation into the very foundations of statehood.
Within a legal framework, the constitution serves as the grundnorm—the foundational basis for shaping public opinion to respond to the dynamics of the era. Constitutionalism, in a doctrinal sense, is understood as a paradigm where state power is limited and grounded by a comprehensive legal consensus. This consensus manifests various dimensions—including political, economic, theological, and socio-cultural—deemed essential for national life.
This perspective aligns with the theories developed by Jimly Asshiddiqie and Mahfud MD, who emphasize that all sectoral norms, whether political or economic, are derivations of these constitutional principles. Therefore, defining the constitution down to its operational level becomes imperative, as it represents the gezag (authority) and the very legitimacy of the state.
The Problem of Harmony and the Paradox of the Separation of Powers
In the post-Reformasi era, Indonesia normatively adopted a system of constitutionalism characterized by the division and separation of powers. This institutional approach served as a drive toward democratization and an antithesis to the centralized authoritarianism of the New Order under the personal leadership of Suharto.
This structure is manifested in the trias politica: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. Theoretically, these three branches are designed to complement one another; the Executive acts as the administrator of government based on regulations (regeling) formulated by the Legislature, while the Judiciary functions to review and enforce these norms.
However, in practice, a significant anomaly exists beneath this structural simplicity. The architects of the constitutional amendments appeared to assume that institutional independence would automatically result in governance sterile from the practices of Corruption, Collusion, and Nepotism (KKN).
Although the President is now directly elected through a popular mandate, and the Legislature (DPR/DPD) possesses broad legislative and oversight powers, this mechanism of checks and balances often becomes ensnared in procedural formalities.
On the other hand, the role of the Judiciary is crucial yet problematic. There is a tendency where the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court engage primarily in textual-positivistic review—pitting one article against another—thereby frequently losing the deeper “spirit” or soul of the constitution.
Epistemological Failures in Capturing the Constitutional Spirit
The failure of the contemporary legal system to guide the nation’s direction can be examined through two primary arguments:
Political Dynamics and the Culture of Patronage. The system erroneously assumes that each institution will consistently represent objective public interests. Socio-political reality demonstrates that a culture of patronage and blind loyalty still dominates practical political dynamics.
Consequently, the process of law-making is often not based on a profound interpretation of the constitution, but rather on the synchronization of interests between the executive and legislative branches to facilitate short-term political agendas.
Dyssynchrony Between Procedure and State Teleology. The current formal system has yet to guarantee the preservation of the constitutional spirit in the long term. Harmony in governance is heavily dependent on consistency toward national goals and the foundational pillars of statehood.
Without the integration of this spirit, legal policy in Indonesia tends to be confined to the sectoral interests of various institutions, resulting in a total disconnection between state administration and the noble ideals of the Republic of Indonesia.
These two arguments, which can be debated in more operational and philosophical terms, demand critical reflection on recent legal products—such as the Job Creation Law and various other agrarian policies.
The question remains: where lies the sovereignty of the people and the “spirit” entrusted by the Founding Parents? Have these values now merely become literary artifacts stored in grand libraries, never to be actualized in real policy?
Reconstructing a Constitutionalism of Virtue
The constitution, in its true sense (constitutio), is not merely a compilation of written norms (positive law). A narrow legal understanding often traps us in symbolic debates that are unproductive. A constitution is a fundamental entity; it is the embodiment of collective actions, habits, and ethics ingrained in the soul to achieve sound reason and robust moral standards.
The Indonesian nation possesses a social modality in the form of Customary Law (Hukum Adat), which holds strong authority in building national identity (nationhood). The visions of the national founders—Sukarno with independence, Hatta with popular sovereignty, Yamin with humanism, and Soepomo with integralism—all converged on a single point: Social Justice and substantial independence for the entire nation without exception.
The legal instrument they utilized was “noble habit” (customary virtues) as practiced by our ancestors, prioritizing character and moral integrity over mere formal documents. This is the essence of law based on Adat. To build a healthy constitutionalism, Indonesia must begin by cultivating collective behavior grounded in virtue.
Manifestation of Constitutionalism: The Effort to Intellectualize National Life
A “healthy” habit in the context of the state is one that consistently aligns with the national objectives enshrined in the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution. The most crucial essence of these state objectives is “intellectualizing the life of the nation” (mencerdaskan kehidupan bangsa).
For nearly eight decades, we have often remained shackled by intellectual poverty and a failure to read the global direction. We are trapped in pragmatic individual interests and ignore deep reflection on the nation’s strategic needs.
Therefore, let us reorient ourselves by prioritizing collective intelligence and the willingness to build a healthy state ecosystem together. That is the core of Indonesian constitutionalism: a Constitutionalism of Noble Virtue that demands moral integrity and intellectual sharpness in every aspect of national life.
