MPR Study Group: People's Sovereignty Must Extend Beyond Elections in Indonesia's Democracy

The implementation of people’s sovereignty within the Pancasila Democracy system cannot be confined to the right to vote in general elections. People’s sovereignty must be realised continuously through public participation in policy formulation, oversight of state administration, and the accountability of power holders.

This view emerged during a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) held by Group I of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) Assessment Body, themed ‘People’s Sovereignty in the Perspective of Pancasila Democracy’, at the Aryaduta Hotel, Bandung, on Monday (13/7). The FGD was chaired by the Head of the MPR Assessment Body, Yasonna H. Laoly, and featured Professor of Contemporary Political Science at Padjadjaran University, Prof. Caroline Paskarina; Head of the Postgraduate Political Science Programme at Padjadjaran University, Ari Ganjar Herdiansah; and Padjadjaran University Law Faculty academic, Bilal Dewansyah.

Prof. Caroline explained that Indonesia possesses a relatively strong constitutional and procedural foundation for conducting general elections and regional head elections. However, democracy has not yet fully delivered substantive people’s sovereignty. She noted that various issues continue to affect the quality of democracy, such as the dominance of political party elites in the nomination process, high political costs, money politics practices, candidates’ dependence on financiers, and the weak relationship between representatives and their constituents after elections. She assessed that the main problem with Indonesian democracy lies not in the absence of democratic institutions, but in the gap between the available democratic mechanisms and the public’s ability to genuinely influence, oversee, and correct the use of state power.

‘People’s sovereignty must not stop on polling day. People’s sovereignty must be present before, during, and after elections through a healthy relationship between the people and their representatives,’ Prof. Caroline stated. She also emphasised that Pancasila Democracy does not need to completely imitate the democratic practices of other countries. Indonesian democracy needs to be built upon the nation’s history, culture, and social realities, while upholding the limitation of power, respect for human rights, openness, accountability, and social justice. She also highlighted the importance of applying the principle of meaningful participation in the process of policy and legislation formation. It is not enough for the public to merely be given the opportunity to express opinions; they also have the right for their input to be considered and to receive an explanation regarding whether their proposals are accepted or rejected.

Meanwhile, Ari Ganjar assessed that the increasing mobilisation of students and the younger generation in recent years is an indicator that formal channels for conveying public aspirations are not yet fully effective. He argued that the main challenge for democracy is not low public participation, but the suboptimal process of translating public aspirations into responsive policies. ‘The voice of the people must be translated into a public agenda, discussed openly, responded to by state institutions, and realised in policies that favour the people’s interests,’ he said. He added that the concerns of the younger generation often stem from real issues such as limited job opportunities, rising education costs, economic pressures, and declining trust in public institutions. Therefore, political education needs to be developed using approaches suited to the character of the younger generation, including through digital media, simulations, educational games, interactive forums, and community-based activities.

Bilal Dewansyah highlighted the continued strong dominance of political parties in Indonesia’s representative system. He argued that although legislators are elected by the people, in practice they often depend more on party decisions and factions than on their constituents’ aspirations. This condition, according to Bilal, has the potential to weaken the accountability of representatives while opening space for the influence of interest groups in the policy-making process. ‘Criticism of state policy must be seen as part of the democratic control mechanism, not as a threat to be met with intimidation or the excessive use of legal instruments,’ he said.

The discussion also covered other challenges, including money politics, identity politics, the influence of social media, and oligarchic dominance. Forum participants agreed that political and constitutional education must be carried out continuously from an early age and adapted to technological developments and societal characteristics. Regarding potential amendments to the 1945 Constitution, the speakers viewed that constitutional change is not always the first answer to democratic problems. Many issues can still be resolved through legislative improvements, strengthening political party institutions, consistent law enforcement, and governance reforms. However, if constitutional amendments are deemed necessary, the process must be based on clear needs, comprehensive academic studies, and public participation.