People Mere Spectators in Drama Surrounding Presidential Election
After the fall of the New Order, we did not expect national politics to still belong to the political elite. In fact, the actors haven't changed much, only the packaging and methods are different.
By
Bivitri Susanti
·4 minutes read
DOKUMENTASI PRIBADI BIVITRI SUSANTI
Bivitri Susanti
The presidential election is like a drama with many fights and making hugs. However, in this drama, the public are mere spectators who will be included when the curtain closes.
In fact, democracy is not a theatrical show. Democracy is the concrete action of the people in determining, organizing, and evaluating how the country is run. The tools used are not theatrical scenarios, but the general elections and public participation in government, including criticizing mistakes.
The first round of this show has already begun. Many political leaders have held meetings. The people can only watch because the rules of the game currently allow only those major political parties that gained votes in the last election to nominate presidential and vice presidential candidates.
Under the presidential threshold, or the presidential nomination threshold, stipulated in the Election Law, only a political party or a group of political parties that won 20 percent of the total seats in the House of Representatives (DPR) or 25 percent of the national vote in the previous legislative election can nominate a presidential and vice presidential candidate pair.
As a result, anyone who wants to run has to be on a party “ticket”, for which parties have no internal democratic mechanism to determine their presidential and vice presidential candidates other than personal preference, which is determined by the potential candidate’s electability based on their popularity ratings. In fact, popularity often rises nowadays from populist issues. As such, the audience is provided only with rhetoric and billboards, not work programs and visions.
The Constitution does not actually provide a wide space for legislators. Article 6A of the 1945 Constitution states that the procedure for organizing the elections is regulated by law. Meanwhile, Article 6 of the 1945 Constitution allows lawmakers to make further requirements related to candidates, but not to further restrict candidates.
After all, the Constitutional Court has interpreted the presidential threshold as determined by the lawmakers as a valid policy (Constitutional Court Decision No. 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008 and 53/PUU-XV/2017). What is neglected in this interpretation is the understanding that the Constitution is about not only the articles it contains, but also democratic values.
How can a procedure be said to be democratic if it is like a blank check for certain political parties, when political parties do not develop a democratic mechanism to determine their candidates?
The requirements mentioned in the Constitution refer only those related to individual and administrative capacities, and do not limit participation. This is because restrictions based on political power can restrict the democratic space. For this reason, the presidential threshold is not determined in other countries that follow the presidential system, such as the United States, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Colombia, and Kyrgyzstan (Abdul Ghoffar, 2018).
What is often used as an excuse is the presence of many competing political parties that could potentially leave the elected president without legitimacy.
In fact, the Constitution has provided a way out through a second round of elections if no candidate gains more than 50 percent of the votes in the first round, since at least 20 percent of the provincial votes are spread across just half of the provinces in Indonesia (Article 6A, paragraphs 3 and 4).
After the fall of the New Order, we did not expect national politics to still belong to the political elite. In fact, the actors haven't changed much, only the packaging and methods are different.
Bearing the right to grant a presidential ticket, political parties work like machines merely to gain power. An alliance is generally formed not on a shared political platform, but for pragmatic reasons that result from negotiations with candidates who seek their backing.
This point allows big room for money politics. Candidates who are seeking a presidential ticket will have to spend a lot of money that mostly come from “investors”. As the saying goes, “There is no such thing as a free lunch,” so investors expect the elected president to reward them with policies that benefit them and their groups.
As a result, a mutually beneficial situation exists between rulers and entrepreneurs. The public, who are supposed to be the main actors of democracy, can only gossip and guess at who might be the candidates they will be given for casting their votes.
After the fall of the New Order, we did not expect national politics to still belong to the political elite. In fact, the actors haven't changed much, only the packaging and methods are different. If these methods are not dismantled, this practice will continue to occur, like a vicious cycle shackling democracy.
BIVITRI SUSANTI, lecturer at Jentera School of Law
