(021) - 296 - 082 - 04 Contact@SidinConstitution.co.id

Part 11: Presidential Threshold Removal: “The Rise of Senators”

Presidential Threshold Removal – Part 11
“The Rise of Senators”

by A. Irmanputra Sidin PhD in Constitutional Law/ Constitutional Lawyer

Before you continue read,  you should read part 9 and 10 so you can get whole comprehension.

As I pointed out in Part 10, the manner of speaking in parliament is influenced by the part of the history at the beginning of the emergence of representative history which succeeded in overthrowing absolute power. After that, people’s lives no longer depend on the King’s compassion but in “the market”.

The market has operated  with money as a tool of exchange between one another. At the beginning,  it was limited to the small area and now it is thriving globally, without limits and  breaking through the state’s border. At the same time, the people could focus on building their lives  and civilization at the market, a constitution born to limit the power, so, and thanks to constitution that kept power under control, making life  feel more chill, harmonious and calm. 

Moreover,  in the early history of representation,  “the market” had not grown globally, the center  of gravity of “the market” (economy) was upon the King who held  absolute power. So, that is why, we found many very popular phrases in constitutional literature which actually was igniting  outrage to the absolute power for example “..  power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority ( John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1870). We could find a phrase that stated  “..If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary…”(Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, 1787).

People at that time, automatically often instinctively viewed that every government, as a tyranny, which becomes a preposition of mind from members of parliament, that is one of the impacts of the manner of speaking from the members of parliament which sometimes tend to be angry, loudly, explosively, intimidatingly, aggressively  and even rudely because they  still overshadowed that the presence of parliament to fight tyranny and the government is deemed as tyranny. The more you speak  louder to the government  the more you will be popular.

Recently, we  had seen spectacle when Senator Adam Schif, Alex Padila  talk intimidatingly to Pam Bondi who was  Trump’s Attorney General nominee during the confirmation hearing. Bondi  felt “ bullied” by US Senate and shouted to Senators Adam Schiff , Alex Padilla “… I’m not going to be bullied by you, Senator Padilla.” . 

The other picture we could  find , the manner of speaking Ton Cotton, U.S Senator to the TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew when he gave testimony before Congress.

This things also influenced by  many literatures of constitution, law  and politics that was mostly inspired by the story of the American Revolution (1765-1783), French Revolution  (1648) or English Revolution (1640) that still deemed government as an enemy.  Those history described that the state was everything, the King was everything, because at that time it was like that.   

Now, that manner of speaking which has influenced by the historical narrative  of people’s anger, should be  abandoned as a roadway to be the national leaders. All the power of the state relies on the constitution not upon the King or the President . Welfare, wealthiness, civilization and  even happiness mostly influenced by the growth of the market in the national and global scheme which stimulates the growth of Gross Domestic Product, not by the King or not by the President.

So, the growing complexity of  interests of people  in national and global matters has affected  in the constitutional living, the President and his cabinet  should not be deemed again as an enemies of the parliament  but coworkers of parliament or DPD  to build the nation and  to build the market. So, no more again to build a manner of speaking with “loudly, intimidatingly, explosively, aggressively or rudely”  as if parliament is fighting against the tyranny .   

The manner of speaking  like that should changed, as it no longer align with this civilization, because the people’s welfare, wealthiness and happiness in nowadays are badly different. Calm communication successfully encouraged individuals  to the top of the political power such as Joko Widodo, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, Puan Maharani, Ahmad Muzani, Gusti Kanjeng Ratu  Hemas, Sufmi Dasco Ahmad etc.  The only thing that to be a top political leaders need only  a voice not a noise.

Human being welfare, wealthiness, and civilization   no longer only  rely on the state power, but on the cooperation of human beings in the market, and even the President himself depends on it.  The market is actually slightly will higher than the state. Nowadays, there is a bunch of people in the world who have an  amount value of wealth exceeds that  the state budget of many countries in the world. Fashion has changed,  the way you speak will be your destiny.

Source : Antara Foto/Aditya Pradana Putra/YU

Critical Thinking or Creative Thinking

At the beginning of the emergence of parliament, so everyone competed to control the executive power but they do not have enough concepts to solve the problem, and then, instead they opted only to criticize the executive. This approach has continue overtime, and actually only became “news lead” or “click-bait” not a leader. The more you share your messages with critical thinking the more you tend to deliver your messages less calmly and even tend to be explosive or angry.

We need political figures who have concept to build the nation and the market, not only critical thinking, because the critical thinking is only effectively applied in the past, at the time all the human interests relied only on the power of the State. These days, all the interests is flying around in the market even the global market which is not limited by  the national border or sovereignty.

Mainly, constructive or creative  thinking should be handheld by the DPD in the context of maintaining communication  with the President and the DPR,  because creative thinking, will be well delivered to the President and the DPR effectively. Constructive and creative thinking  has proven succeed in building civilization, leading some individual such as Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy and from Indonesia, Erick Thohir, Sandiaga Uno to the top political leaders.

Sultan Bachtiar Najamuddin, the chairman of the DPD as long as he  leads all the senators to stop lamenting the fate of their limited power, he is going to be one of the most potential candidates for President 2029. Politics most likely does not need strong power but needs only the stage. As a weak constitutional institution,  the DPD could utilize it, because it could automatically gain support from the people. “The less is more”,  but of course as the Chairman of DPD, one  should maintain the  balance with The DPR  and the President , do not fight over with them, but cooperate to  build the nation. Presidential Thresholds Removal is a red carpet for the all Senators to be Presidential Candidates.  

Thank you..

Jakarta January 20, 2025

*Featured Photo, Source : ET Online*

#irmanputrasidin

 

0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x