Constitutional Court Decision 55/2020 Would not Simplify the Political System in Indonesia

Like these massive showing of political party flags, Constitutional Court Decision 55/2020 would not simplify the political system in Indonesia. Credit: ANTARA/Arwansyah

Introduction

On Garuda Party’s request for a judicial review of Article 173 paragraph (1) of Law 7/2017, the Constitutional Court issued Decision 55/2020. This decision stipulates that political parties contesting in future elections can bypass factual verifications if they have passed such verifications and surpassed the Parliamentary Threshold (PT) in the 2019 elections. In other words, these parties would only require administrative verifications to contest in the 2024 Elections. Consequently, there will minimally be nine political parties contesting in these upcoming elections. Rather than simplifying the political system in Indonesia by reducing the number of parties—for which this decision was supposedly intended—the number of parties that will qualify to contest in the 2024 Elections would likely be more than those that contested in the 2019 Elections due to lesser constraints.

Capping Contesting Parties in Elections, Strengthening Indonesia’s Presidential System

Capping the number of political parties contesting in elections strengthens the presidential system in Indonesia particularly when it is combined with a multiparty system. The existence of extreme multiparty conditions has led to political compromises which interferes with the effectiveness of a government. Such conditions as observed during Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration (2004-2009) led to the administration being suboptimal as it was built on a fragile and fluid coalition of political parties. This was again inevitably observed in Joko Widodo’s administration. Ministerial appointments, which the President had full prerogative of, became transactional as these appointments were split among the coalition party members as reward for their support.

One method of capping the number of contesting political parties is via their verification, both factually and administratively, in every election. Without such verification, the number of political parties contesting in elections is bound to increase. This is especially important in Indonesia due to the dynamism of political parties, prevalence of internal party conflicts, and parties’ weak institutional systems. Other means of capping include conducting simultaneous legislative and Presidential elections as conducted in 2019, changing the size of electoral districts, changing the formulas for converting votes to seats, and changing the presidential election system to a majority run off. Unfortunately, holding simultaneous elections in 2019 did not have the desired effect of decreasing the number of contesting parties. However, during that election, voter participation increased.

Technical Process of Verification: Factual vs. Administrative

The General Elections Commission of Indonesia (KPU), responsible for regulating the technical implementation of political party verifications, divides the process into two stages, namely administrative and factual verifications. As its namesake, administrative verification entails the verification of submitted documents such as the political party registration documents. During this stage, the KPU would scrutinize for individuals with more than one membership to political parties and those that do not meet the requirements to contest.  This includes cross-referencing the list of names of members of political parties against copies of their political party membership cards (KTA) and identity cards (KTP), and checking signatures and stamps on each document.

In the second stage, the factual verification, the senior management of political parties are verified. This includes visiting the headquarters of political parties to verify the names of the Chairperson, Secretary General, and General Treasurer, while ensuring that 30% of the senior management are filled by female members. Additionally, the KPU must also verify and ensure the validity of the domicile of political parties’ headquarters as listed in the registration documents.

The Constitutional Court’s Inconsistencies in Defining the Verification Process

Prior to the Constitutional Court’s Decision 55/2020, the Constitutional Court had previously issued two other decisions, namely Decision 52/2012 (which was the result of the judicial review regarding the 2014 Election) and Decision 53/2017 (the result of a judicial review for the 2019 election). With Decision 52/2012, all political parties must be verified to become election contestants. This is to avoid imposing different conditions or unequal treatment on parties wanting to contest.

Meanwhile, Decision 53/2017 culminated from a judicial review of the lawsuit filed by the ‘Idaman’ Party—a newly formed political party participating in the 2019 General Election. This political party felt disadvantaged by the provisions of Article 173 paragraph (3) of Law 7/2017 which stated that political parties that have passed verification in the previous elections do not need to be re-verified and can be directly designated as election contestants. With Decision 53/2017, it was re-instated that all political parties—both new political parties and political parties that contested in the 2014 General Election—were required to be verified in order to become election contestants. Thus, both the Constitutional Court Decisions 52/2012 and 53/2017 consistently applied the principles of equality and justice for every political party. Additionally, in 2017, the Courts agreed that bypassing factual verification contradicted the spirit of capping the number of political parties the political system in Indonesia.

However, in the latest Constitutional Court’s decision (55/2020), the Panel of Judges held a different view from previous decisions, namely political parties that have previously passed the verification process in 2019 and the PT are only required to undergo administrative verification. This decision, thus, goes against the Court’s previous principles of equality and the spirit of simplification.

The Logic Behind Decision 55/2020

In the Court’s consideration for Decision 55/2020, they deemed it unfair for all political parties participating in the 2024 General Election to undergo the same verification process, especially when numerous parties had successfully participated in the previous General Election. These parties, according to the Constitutional Court, had previously passed both administrative and factual verifications—considered an arduous task and quite an accomplishment. Apart from the requirements described previously, political parties must also meet other requirements such as satisfying the minimum number of members at the provincial, district/city and sub-district levels. Participants in the 2019 Election must also surpassed the PT for the Legislative body (DPR). Considering these past accomplishments, the Constitutional Court considered it unfair to equate old political parties with new political parties.

The Constitutional Court argued that Decision 53/2017 was an attempt to uphold the principle of equality before the law but lacked the enforcement of the principle of justice because it applied equal treatment to Election Contestants that were to be treated differently.

Reactions to and Implication of Decision 55/2020

Saldi Isra, a judge in the Constitutional Court, expressed a dissenting opinion on the decision. He iterated that Decision 55/2020 had contradicted the previous Decision 53/2017 requiring re-verification to cap the number of political parties participating in the election. Furthermore, the verification of political parties, both administrative and factual, is part of an intentional design to strengthen the Presidential system of governance. He further stated Decision 53/2017 was in accordance with Indonesia’s guiding constitution—the 1945 Constitution.

Similarly, Decision 55/2020 was not supported by several Civil Society Organizations (CSOs). The Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem) advocates that all political parties must continue to undergo factual and administrative verifications given the dynamic conditions of political party membership. Additionally, Perludem argued that the Constitutional Court’s decision was not based on justice if only new parties or those that did not previously meet the requirements are required to undergo more extensive verifications. The Constitutional and Democratic Initiative (KODE Inisiatif) also considered Decision 55/2020 to be contrary to the previous Constitutional Court’s decision and is considered to be against the principle of the elections. They argued that political parties which had previously passed the PT will not always qualify as parties participating in the election because of dynamism within political parties. This dynamism is attributed to the constant change in party leadership due to internal conflicts which could lead to circumstances such as factionalism and dual leadership.

Meanwhile, Jazilul Fawaid—the Deputy Chairperson of the National Awakening Party (PKB)— supported Decision 55/2020. Representing a political party that will benefit from Decision 55/2020, he believed that based on previous Elections, political parties that have satisfied the PT are likely to pass the administrative and factual verifications again. He further argued that requiring all political parties to undergo both verifications will entail higher government expenditure.

Despite the arguments, verification is not only a mechanism that could be regulated constitutionally but also tends to oscillate between being favorable to old political parties and viewing both old and new political parties as equal. With Decision 55/2020, the Constitutional Court themselves would be responsible for the potential increase in political parties contesting in the 2024 Elections. This decision also defeats the intended purpose of verification as a mechanism for simplifying the political system in Indonesia.


The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of STRAT.O.SPHERE CONSULTING PTE LTD.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Licence. Republications minimally require 1) credit authors and their institutions, and 2) credit to STRAT.O.SPHERE CONSULTING PTE LTD  and include a link back to either our home page or the article URL.

Author

  • Ania Safitri is an alumnus of the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Indonesia. Her research interest is on electoral issues in Indonesia.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *