The deliberation of the draft bill on implementation of general elections is still on going. The tug-of-war of inter-faction interests continues, while time grows short.
One of the crucial points not yet reached is the presidential nomination threshold. The government and the factions have different opinions.
There are three opinions. The government wants the threshold to be 20 percent of seats in the House of Representatives. Several factions want a 0 percent threshold, while some groups want 6.5 to 10 percent of national votes. Each faction has its arguments.
The presidential nomination threshold became a complex issue following the decision of the Constitutional Court on January 23, 2014, which states that the 2019 general elections will simultaneously hold the presidential election, the legislative election, the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) election, provincial assembly elections, and city/regency council elections on the same day. These are known as the “five-box election”.
A number of factions interpret the principle of simultaneousness to mean that no threshold for a presidential candidacy is required. Every political party participating in the 2019 general elections is entitled to a presidential candidate, even though the Constitutional Court does not emphasize the presidential nomination threshold in its decision of 2014. Justice Maria Farida, in a dissenting opinion, rejected simultaneous election lawsuits because this was part of lawmakers’ or open legal policy.
The government and the factions that propose a presidential nomination threshold will use the 2014 election results. In fact, the 2014 results indicate that20 percent of the House of Representatives votes and 25 percent of the national votes have been used for the 2019 presidential election. If this construction is used, then the 2019 election results will be used for the 2024 general election if no changes are made to the General Election Law amendments.
We encourage the government and factions to continue negotiating in consensual deliberations as urged by Pancasila. There are no dead-ended words in politics, which is an art of looking for possibilities.
Suggestions that the government issue a regulation in lieu of law (Perppu) if the deliberation of the draft law on implementation of general elections is deadlocked are constitutionally correct, but not appropriate in the political context. The proposal to use the existing Law No. 42/2008 on General Elections is also inappropriate, because a number of its articles have been revoked by the Constitutional Court.
There are no other words; all need to sit together in consensus deliberation. The role of the President as head of state is important to formulate mutual consensus. Power interests should be set aside to enable this nation to have an imperishable general election law and to be able to institutionalize democracy. Changes to a general election law ahead of any election does not make democracy mature; it is merely a form of political pragmatism.