Vaudine England – Indonesia's politicians are eager to give the appearance that they are acting properly in following a process that could lead to the impeachment of the President. The problem is that the constitution is vague about how to go about it.
"We have no impeachment process," a senior legislator of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, Subagio Anam, said yesterday.
A process has evolved which draws its legitimacy from the regulations of the highest constitutional body, the Peoples' Consultative Assembly (MPR). So far that system is holding, albeit with some improvisation.
Under the system, the House of Representatives, the lower house of Parliament, can censure Mr Wahid, as it did on Thursday, through a formal memorandum requiring the President to respond to Parliament's stated concerns within three months.
If Parliament remains dissatisfied with Abdurrahman Wahid, it could issue a second memorandum giving the President a further month to answer the allegations.
If he still fails to please the House by then – four months from now – the lower house could demand a special session of the MPR, which could pass a vote of no confidence in the President, probably by asking him to deliver an accountability speech, which the MPR would then reject. It is generally assumed that such a move would force the President to resign.
Former president Bacharuddin Habibie was required to give an accountability speech to the MPR in August 1999. The MPR rejected the speech and, after several hours of tortured negotiations, Mr Habibie withdrew himself from the vote for a new president. However, many experts argued that Mr Habibie was not legally required to step down.
With the tenacious Mr Wahid in a similar situation, it is impossible to predict if he would also choose to "do the right thing".
Constitutional experts say "gentlemen's agreements" have been integral to Indonesia's political process since the founding of the republic in 1945.
The constitution's lack of detail on checks and balances inspired Mr Wahid to claim the parliamentary committee that investigated him was illegal.
However, if Mr Wahid wants to be seen to be doing the right thing, he will have to find some way to respond to Parliament's concerns.