{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1683048,
        "msgid": "restructuring-electoral-democracy-1776397864",
        "date": "2026-04-17 10:31:00",
        "title": "Restructuring Electoral Democracy",
        "author": "Ferril Dennys",
        "source": "KOMPAS",
        "tags": "",
        "topic": "Politics",
        "summary": "The ongoing revision of Indonesia's Election Law by the DPR's Commission II represents a critical opportunity to overhaul the foundations of electoral democracy, which have been marred by piecemeal fixes and judicial interventions over the past decade. Central to the debate is the parliamentary threshold, which balances the need for governmental efficiency against preserving political representation in a diverse society. Lawmakers must design a proportional system informed by research on electoral impacts, avoiding extremes that could either fragment parliament excessively or marginalise diverse voices, while addressing ambiguities in Constitutional Court rulings on separating national and local elections.",
        "content": "<p>The revision of the Election Law currently being drafted by\nCommission II of the DPR is not merely a routine legislative agenda. It\nis a moment to reorganise the foundations of Indonesia\u2019s electoral\ndemocracy, which over the past decade has been filled with patchwork\nrepairs, judicial corrections, and institutional experiments that are\nnot yet fully mature. With at least 10 major issues being mapped out,\nthis revision should not stop at technical responses to Constitutional\nCourt (MK) decisions, but should serve as an entry point to\ncomprehensively re-formulate the architecture of the national election\nsystem. It is at this point that the debate on the parliamentary\nthreshold finds its relevance. Since it was first introduced, the\nthreshold has always been defended in the name of simplifying the party\nsystem. From a governability perspective, simplification does have its\nrationale. However, Indonesia\u2019s democracy has not yet fully completed\nthe stage of institutionalising representation. In the phase of maturing\ndemocracy, overly aggressive party simplification can actually close off\nchannels for articulating fluid and diverse social groups. This dilemma\nmust be addressed by the lawmakers in the revision of the Election Law:\nbetween the need for governmental efficiency and the interest in\nmaintaining political representation. A high threshold is indeed\nfunctional for efficient parliament, but it has the potential to\ndiminish the diversity of political aspirations. Conversely, a threshold\nthat is too low gives birth to excessive fragmentation. In this context,\nwhat is needed is not just a compromise number, but a design based on\nresearch into electoral effects, distribution of wasted votes, and the\nquality of representation. Currently, the lawmakers are caught between\nthe tension of two democracy paradigms: governability democracy and\ninclusive representative democracy. Indonesia cannot simply imitate the\nGerman or Turkish models with their high thresholds, because our\nsocio-political structure is far more pluralistic and political parties\nremain the main instruments for aggregating local, religious, and\nideological identities. Therefore, the revision of the Election Law must\nposition the threshold as a proportional system engineering instrument,\nnot a tool for political exclusion. The second issue, which is no less\ncomplex, is the ambivalence of the MK\u2019s decision regarding the\nseparation of national and local elections.<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/restructuring-electoral-democracy-1776397864",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}