The Constitutionality of the Presidential Threshold Provisions in Indonesian Election Law: A Juridical Review of Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58812/wslhr.v2i03.1170Keywords:
Presidential Threshold, Indonesian Election Law, Constitutional Analysis, Political Stability, Democratic RepresentationAbstract
This study critically examines the constitutionality of the presidential nomination threshold provision stipulated in Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections. By conducting a juridical analysis, this research explores the legal and constitutional underpinnings of the presidential nomination threshold, which mandates a minimum percentage of parliamentary seats or popular votes for a political party or coalition to nominate a presidential candidate. The analysis explores the historical context, legislative intent and judicial interpretation of the threshold provision. It also assesses the impact of these provisions on political competition, electoral fairness and democratic representation in Indonesia. It identifies potential constitutional conflicts and proposes legal reforms to enhance the legitimacy and inclusiveness of the presidential election process. Through a comprehensive legal review, this research aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on electoral law and democratic governance in Indonesia.
References
A. S. S. Lubis, G. A. R. Damayanti, and S. Karyati, “Ambang Batas Presiden Pada Pemilihan Umum Serentak,” Unizar Law Rev., vol. 6, no. 2, 2023.
M. A. M. Rahman, R. F. Luis, and A. S. Ruslie, “Indonesia’s Presidential Threshold: An Analysis of Legal and Political Dynamics,” J. Mengkaji Indones., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 248–264, 2023.
A. Cahyono, A. Iftitah, A. R. Hidayatullah, E. Yuliastuti, and W. Susetiyo, “Analisis Kritis terhadap Penerapan Presidential Threshold dalam Pemilihan Umum 2024: Perspektif Hukum Normatif di Indonesia,” J. Supremasi, pp. 1–14, 2023.
J. Zaman and K. Saiban, “Problematika Sistem Presidential Threshold Ditinjau dari Maqāṣid al-Syarī’ah,” BUSTANUL FUQAHA J. Bid. Huk. Islam, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 98–120, 2024.
J. M. Monteiro, “Presidential Threshold and Parliamentary Threshold Setting in Elections,” J. Progress. Law Leg. Stud., vol. 1, no. 02, 2023.
N. Z. Qolbu and L. Wulandari, “The Impact of The Parliamentary Threshold Policy On Small Parties: The Failure of The Partai Persatuan Pembangunan To Meet The Parliamentary Threshold In The 2024 Election,” J. Law, Polit. Humanit., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 453–461, 2024.
S. Fikri, M. Firmansyah, and V. Sabina, “Penguatan Sistem Presidensial Melalui Penerapan Ambang Batas Parlementary Threshold,” J. Sos. Hum. Sigli, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 511–520, 2023.
M. Ritonga and R. Harahap, “Keterlibatan Selebriti Pasca Parliamentary Threshold dalam Kontestasi Politik Elektoral di Indonesia,” J. Pemerintah. Dan Polit., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 238–245, 2023.
M. Maksum and A. Hamid, “The Role Of The Constitutional Court In Testing The Presidential Threshold Law For The 2024 Presidential Election,” Al-Adl J. Huk., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 214–227, 2024.
C. Laußmann, J. Rothe, and T. Seeger, “Apportionment with Thresholds: Strategic Campaigns are Easy in the Top-Choice but Hard in the Second-Chance Mode,” in International Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practice of Computer Science, Springer, 2024, pp. 355–368.
S. Bond-Smith and C. Leishman, “Threshold regressions for more objective urban and regional policies,” Cities, vol. 149, p. 104925, 2024.
E. Jesse, “Die Fünfprozentklausel aus politikwissenschaftlicher Sicht: Geschichte, Wirkung, Kri-tik, Reformen,” ZParl Zeitschrift für Parlam., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 105–123, 2023.
K. M. Bezubik, “The Bigger the Choise, the Harder it is to Choose–About the Reform of the Electoral System for the German Bundestag,” Przegląd Prawa Konst., no. 4 (68), pp. 341–350, 2022.
T. Giegerich, “Gendering Political Participation in Germany and Beyond: Should Quotas Ensure Gender Parity in Parliaments?,” in International Workshop on cross-cutting topics in legal studies, Springer Nature Switzerland Cham, 2023, pp. 141–166.
S. Barbaro and A. Specht, “Condorcet method, independence of irrelevant alternatives, and the size of the Bundestag,” Ger. Polit., pp. 1–29, 2022.
V. der V. der DVParl, Zukunft der repräsentativen Demokratie: 50 Jahre Deutsche Vereinigung für Parlamentsfragen eV (DVParl). Nomos, 2024.
J. You and J.-D. Lin, “Liberal Taiwan versus illiberal South Korea: The divergent paths of election campaign regulation,” J. East Asian Stud., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 437–462, 2020.
S. L. Ding, H. Kim, and Y. Kang, “Imagined homogeneity: Identity and geopolitical and geoeconomic influences in the linguistic landscape of Seoul,” Lingua, vol. 244, p. 102851, 2020.
E. Mobrand, “Limited pluralism in a liberal democracy: Party law and political incorporation in South Korea,” J. Contemp. Asia, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 605–621, 2018.
J. Nilsson-Wright, “Contested politics in South Korea: Democratic evolution, national identity and political partisanship,” Chatham House, R. Inst. Int. Aff., no. July, 2022.
O. Analytica, “Political instability will increase in South Korea,” Emerald Expert Briefings, no. oxan-es, 2023.
D. Bochsler, “Are mixed electoral systems the best choice for Central and Eastern Europe or the reason for defective party systems?,” Polit. Policy, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 735–767, 2009.
V. A. Usova, “Mixed Parallel Electoral System — Optimal Choice under Authoritarianism? (Cross-National Comparative Study),” J. Polit. Theory, Polit. Philos. Sociol. Polit. Polit., vol. 112, pp. 98–113, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.30570/2078-5089-2024-112-1-98-113.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Irma Putra, Arief Fahmi Lubis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Facebook 
Instagram 
Twitter 
Youtube 
+62 821 1557 5700
westscience.journals@gmail.com