TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
End of threshold regime: Toward substantial democracy?
The court's decision will minimize the dominance of big or ruling parties in determining the course of the presidential race, which has disadvantaged smaller parties.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Game changer: Constitutional Court Chief Justice Suhartoyo (center), accompanied by his deputy, Justice Saldi Isra (second left), Justice Enny Nurbaningsih (left), Justice Arief Hidayat (second right) and Justice Guntur Hamzah, presides over a hearing in Jakarta on Jan. 2, 2025. (Antara Foto/Fauzan)
O
n Thursday, the Constitutional Court (MK) voted to remove the threshold for nominating presidential and vice presidential candidates after 36 motions for judicial review. The court concluded that the mechanism not only contradicted people’s political rights, but also violated morality, rationality and justice.
The court's decision will require the House of Representatives to revise the 2017 General Election Law in a manner which positively impacts the process and practice of Indonesian democracy. According to the law, a political party or coalition of parties must control 20 percent of the House of Representatives seats or have won 25 percent of the popular vote in the previous legislative election to be eligible to field a presidential candidate.
In its ruling, the court said each political party contesting the general election has the right to nominate a presidential candidate, whether or not it holds House seats. However, political parties that do not participate in the presidential election are subject to a ban in the next election.
There are at least three consequences of the removal of the presidential threshold. First, parties do not necessarily have to form a coalition to field a presidential candidate. They have independence and will be able to take up the aspirations of constituents regarding the selection of presidential candidates.
Parties will have an incentive to select candidates not only on the basis of popularity, but more importantly, on the basis of ideological similarity. The threshold system has made it difficult for opposition candidates to compete.
In other words, the court's decision will minimize the dominance of big or ruling parties in determining the course of the presidential race, which has disadvantaged smaller parties.
Second, the ruling will curtail the practice of political dowry, or money given in exchange for support for certain candidates, which has been rampant in the past. The threshold has institutionalized the practice, making elections costly.
