Chief Justice Suhartoyo opening another material judicial review of the Election Law on the parliamentary threshold, Monday (1/22/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — Efforts to simplify parties by continuing to raise the parliamentary threshold is an option that needs to be reviewed, said Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the International Islamic University of Indonesia Philips J. Vermonte, which Perludem presented at a material judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law). The hearing for cases No. 116/PUU-XXI/2023, filed by the Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem), and No. 124/PUU-XXI/2023, filed by the Ummat Party, took place on Monday, January 22, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.
In his testimony, Vermonte explained that in Indonesia, thresholds in politics are always a compromise between the legislatures. He believes that a clear formulation is needed for the numbers set as thresholds, given that as political policies in the legal provisions on election, they affect the political parties’ opportunity to sit in the House of Representatives (DPR). Such formulation is also required when determining the conversion of votes to electoral seats using the Sainte-Laguë method in the Election Law.
“It is a mathematics electoral formula whose academic reference is clear. The same logic must apply to the formulation of parliamentary threshold. On the other hand, in my opinion, it is important to clarify the meaning of ‘the simplification of the multiparty system,’ which has always been made the key objective in debates on determining formal threshold in election laws,” he said before Chief Justice Suhartoyo and the other constitutional justices.
He further said that French jurist Maurice Duverger argued that initially, the party system is classified based on the number of political parties in the parliament. However, over time, it is not only seen from the number of political parties in the parliament but also the composition of seats the parties obtain, which affect interaction between political parties in producing policies.
“Secondly, efforts to simplify political parties need to consider reformulation of other variables in the electoral system, one of which in my opinion is the size of electoral districts. On a more appropriate occasion, the legislatures need to think about and consider this aspect. Third, there are many dimensions that can be used as the basis for calculating the parliamentary threshold. One consideration that needs to be the main concern is how voters’ votes are not wasted, and the size of the parliamentary threshold is really able to make the concentration of seats in the House no longer spread to many political parties,” he concluded.
Another expert presented by Perludem, Didik Supriyanto, said simplifying the party system does not mean reducing the number of parties in the parliament, but shift the extreme multiparty system to a moderate multiparty system. He emphasized that the use of parliamentary thresholds (2.5%, 3.5%, 4%) has proven to fail to simplify the party system. To achieve a moderate multiparty system, the electoral district should be represented by 3 to 6 seats.
He believes the parliamentary threshold is still necessary to filter parties who do not have significant votes from entering the parliament. “The parliamentary threshold shouldn’t lead to more wasted votes, thus making election results not proportional,” he explained.
Responding to these experts, Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani said that the debates over parliamentary threshold is interesting. He said that the best electoral system should not only compare what occurs to what happens in other countries but also guarantee constitutional rights. He argued that it should view Indonesia’s the administration as a whole, including the design when the country was established.
“I’d like to ask for [your] opinions whether, if the current system is maintained, it will provide citizens who have the right to vote with better constitutional rights. Also being used as touchstones are three other articles that will make the rule of law better. Secondly, better proportionality is built not by setting a threshold but also by linking it to the distribution of seats with a formula that can reflect the minimum votes ‘in vain’ because they are not represented in parliament, then why not reduce the threshold? For the presidential election, many people want the presidential threshold to be eliminated, but why not do it within the framework of simplifying political parties by limiting the number of factions so that the chaos in parliament is minimized?” he asked.
Responding to the question, Vermonte explained that Indonesia’s electoral system must answer a major question, which might be constitutional-based, of whether the system to build will prioritize representation or whether it will boost whoever who runs government effectively and efficiently.
“This question is usually made into a dichotomy because sometimes we generate a proportional election system but there are many parties, as is seen in Indonesia today,” he said.
Also read:
Perludem Challenges Parliamentary Threshold
Perludem Revises Petition on Parliamentary Threshold
Parliamentary Threshold Serves to Simplify the Party System
At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner of case No. 116/PUU-XXI/2023 argued that the parliamentary threshold is one of the important variables of the electoral system that will have a direct impact on the conversion of votes into seats. They asserted that the provision of the parliamentary threshold should be associated with Article 168 paragraph (2) of the Election Law, which stipulates that elections to elect members of the House, both at the provincial and regency/city levels, shall be conducted with the open-list proportional system.
In the petition, the Petitioner mentions that it is confirmed legislative elections in Indonesia use the proportional system, but the election results show disproportionate results because the percentages of votes obtained by political parties are not in line with those of parliament seats. This means that there are fundamental problems that must be resolved in the proportional election system in Indonesia. The issue impacts the people’s sovereignty as the main foundation of elections as well as the fulfillment of the principle of honest and fair elections as set forth in Article 22E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and legal certainty in an election regulation as stipulated in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, and the principle of the rule of law in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution.
Also read:
Ummat Party Challenges Parliamentary Threshold
Ummat Party Affirms Petition on Parliamentary Threshold
Ummat Party’s central executive board, represented by Ridho Ramhadi (chairman) and A. Muhajir (secretary-general), petitions Article 414 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 of the Election Law in case No. 124/PUU-XXI/2023.
At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, October 10, legal counsel Muhammad Yuntri questioned the 4% threshold set for the DPR seats in the current Election Law. One of the Petitioner’s legal counsels Muhammad Yuntri said that the parliamentary thresholds set for the previous elections were 2% in 1999; and 3% for DPR and 4% for Provincial DPRD in the 2004 Election, in which 24 political parties participated. Meanwhile, in the 2009 Election, which was based on Law No. 10 of 2008 on General Elections of Members of DPR and DPRD, the threshold was 2.5% of the total number of national valid votes.
The Petitioner argues that the threshold for political parties to be included in the allocation of the DPR seat as stipulated in Article 414 paragraph (1) of the Election Law is not only based on the acquisition of national valid votes. They believe that the accumulation of DPR seat acquisition of all electoral districts (dapil) must also be included since the “price” for a seat in electoral districts outside of the Java Island is lower than that inside Java. This system is another form of fair guarantee for a more proportional election as mandated by the Constitution.
Therefore, the Ummat Party requests the Court to declare Article 414 paragraph (1) of Election Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as, “A political party contesting in an election must reach the electoral threshold, which is 4% (four percent) of the national number of valid votes or 4% (four percent) of the number of DPR seats, in order to be included in the seat allocation for DPR members.”
Author : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Raisa Ayuditha
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.
Monday, January 22, 2024 | 15:39 WIB 550