Cadre Development is Key to Advancing Political Parties, Analyst: Not Through Party Hijacking Actions

Efforts in cadre development are considered a crucial aspect in strengthening and advancing political parties. This serves as the key to ensuring regeneration within parties avoids hijacking practices by external parties.

“The internal party contestation process must indeed prioritise internal figures, not outsiders or those who become popular and seize control of the party due to power,” said Political Analyst Adi Prayitno during the National Seminar organised by Pinter Hukum titled Independence of Political Parties: Strengthening Internal Solidarity and Mitigating External Interventions, held at the National Library in Jakarta on Saturday, 28 March 2026.

Adi exemplified the United Development Party (PPP), which recently experienced internal conflict. “The phenomenon in PPP has triggered friction and internal conflict because one of the candidates (for general chairman) was deemed not a cadre from the Ka’bah Party; that was the starting point of the conflict,” he stated.

He also reminded that if internal party disputes reach the courts, the handling judges must decide fairly. Moreover, the performance of judges today is easily monitored by the public.

“Whoever the party, it must be protected from interventions and internal conflicts. Return it to the party court; isn’t the purpose of a party to consolidate?” said Adi.

However, if friction or internal conflict is difficult to find common ground, actors or dissatisfied parties should not hijack or take over the political party. “Such actors or parties should establish a new political party,” he said.

The step of establishing a new political party, according to the Lecturer in Political Science at the State Islamic University of Jakarta, is considered more elegant and simultaneously proves that the involved actors or parties indeed have sufficient followers and logistics. “If you are strong and capable, create a new party so that conflicts do not recur. Do not disrupt existing parties,” he said.

Party hijacking efforts, Adi continued, ultimately severely damage democracy and endanger parties in Indonesia. Adi believes that what PPP experienced could happen to other major political parties in the country. “Therefore, political parties must not tolerate party hijacking. (Instead) how to prioritise the regeneration process, especially at the leadership level (general chairman),” he said.

Constitutional Law Lecturer from the University of Indonesia, Titi Anggraini, assessed that one indicator of unhealthy democratic governance within political parties is the election of a general chairman who does not originate from the party’s cadres. Party leadership should reflect a consistent cadre development process internally. Decision-making must be carried out democratically, involving the voices of officials and members.

“The general chairman of a political party should truly be the result of the cadre development mechanism. The decision-making process in the party must also be democratic, listening to the aspirations of officials and members,” said Titi.

She also criticised the emergence of instant leaders within parties. Although parties are open, leadership should still be held by individuals who have undergone a long process as cadres. “Someone who has just joined, even within days, should not suddenly become the general chairman. The party must still be managed by cadres who have progressed within it,” she said.

Lecturer from the Faculty of Law at Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa University, Firdaus, stated that the mechanism for resolving internal political party disputes, including the PPP leadership conflict, is clearly regulated in the Political Parties Law. Every political party, he said, is required to have a Party Court as the primary forum for resolving various forms of internal disputes.

“The Political Parties Law stipulates that internal disputes must first be resolved through the internal political party mechanism via the Party Court or other designation. This becomes the primary mechanism for resolving conflicts, including leadership disputes,” said Firdaus. He emphasised that specifically for leadership disputes, the Party Court’s decision is final and binding, so no further legal action can be taken to the courts.

He also stressed the importance of legal standing in filing disputes. According to him, not all parties can file a lawsuit against party leadership. “Those with legal standing to sue are at least two-thirds of the participants in the party’s highest decision-making forum. So, it cannot be just because of disagreement, then immediately sue,” he said.

Furthermore, Firdaus mentioned that there are two important stages to consider in resolving party disputes. First, ensuring whether the party has and implements an internal dispute resolution mechanism. If that mechanism is available, it must be pursued first. However, if the party does not have or does not implement that internal mechanism, only then can the dispute be brought to court. “If the internal mechanism exists and has produced a decision, there should be no further legal action to the courts. Because it is already final and binding,” he said.