---

Hamdi Muluk as Expert for the Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI) delivering his expertise in the judicial review hearing of the Election Law, Thursday (22/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a further judicial review hearing of Law No. 7/2017 (Cases 48 and 53/PUU-XVI/2018) on Thursday (22/11). The session was to hear information from Hamdi Muluk as Expert presented by the Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI). 

Hamdi explained that in the voting theory and supported by empirical findings, to be able to be voted by voters, a candidate or political party must pass three iron laws, namely popularity, likeability and electability. 

"It is difficult for candidates or political parties to be liked if they are not known. Only after they are widely recognized, they can be liked. After they are favored, it will be possible for them to be Voted," said Hamdi as political psychology expert of the Indonesian University (UI). 

Hamdi said, to make candidates or political parties recognizable to the wider audience, strategy and sufficient time were needed to carry out socialization activities adequately. The law should not provide rigid limits or restrictions, both in terms of time and methods of socialization. 

"The socialization of political parties introduces their existence to the public. This includes their whole identity, such as statute/bylaws, logo, symbol, motto, management, ideology, ideas, programs, including vision and mission. A broad and comprehensive introduction is intended so that the public can fully recognize the figures of a political party that might be political choices for citizens on the voting day. In this case, it is a political right of citizens to fully recognize the figures of a political party. It is also an obligation for political parties to introduce themselves. That should be guaranteed by the Constitution," said Hamdi. 

In this case, Hamdi added, the law does regulate what constitutes a campaign. However, it does not regulate what constitutes socialization by political parties. Only campaigns are regulated by law. 

"Election campaigns are the activities of electoral participants or parties appointed by election participants to convince voters by offering vision, mission, programs and or self-image of election participants. This provision is in conflict with the phrase \'self-image\' of the election participants," said Hamdi. 

Hamdi added that the phrase \'self-image\' in psychology can be defined as the whole description of a person who is believed and also through certain efforts displayed to other people who observe them. In this case, what one wants to display is their whole identity including characteristics inherent in a person, in the form of physical characteristics, personality traits, behaviors that can describe of one\'s self-image. 

"In other words, what can be displayed as an effort to shape self-image is very broad and difficult to be limited to only certain aspects. For example, in the context of political parties such as political party symbol, number, colors, buildings, management figures, and so on," said Hamdi. 

The Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI) as Petitioner of case No. 48/PUU-XVI/2018 reviews Article 1 number 35, Article 275 paragraph (2), and Article 276 paragraph (2) of the Election Law. According to the Petitioner, the phrase "self-image" in Article 1 number 35 of the Election Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution because it is stated as part of election campaign activities. Whereas Article 275 paragraph (2) and Article 276 paragraph (2) of the Election Law contradict the 1945 Constitution because they have created a limitation for the Petitioner in independently carrying out campaigns, restricted new political parties, which indicates political cartels of old political parties, and harmed the constitutional rights of PSI as a new political party because they do not provide space for advertising, other than through channels provided by the Election Commission (KPU).

Meanwhile, Muhammad Hafidz and Abdul Hakim as Petitioners of Case 53/PUU-XVI/2018 felt disadvantaged by criminal sanctions as stipulated in Article 429 of the Election Law. They are threatened by the criminal provision due to election campaigns outside the schedule set by the election organizers as stipulated in Article 492 of the Election Law. The Petitioners had claimed it would at least obstruct their constitutional right to create an ideal party for the people, by asking for input and/or responses from the public regarding the affiliation of each individual in determining who would be the candidate and the basis for choosing candidates in the general elections. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---