Every time the revision of the Election Law is discussed, the debate regarding theparliamentary thresholdquickly narrows down to a bargaining of numbers: four percent, five percent, or seven percent.
In reality, numbers are merely tools. The questions that should be asked first are: what is the purpose of the threshold, and who bears the consequences?
The Constitutional Court has provided direction. Through Decision Number 116/PUU-XXI/2023, the Court stated that the 4 percent threshold in Article 414 paragraph (1) of Law Number 7 of 2017 remains in effect for the 2024 DPR Election, but its application for the 2029 Election and beyond must be adjusted to the constitutional parameters determined by the Court.
According to various reports on the decision, some parameters that must be considered include the sustainability of threshold application, proportionality between votes and representation, the prevention of excessive wasted votes, the goal of simplifying political parties, the completion of changes before the 2029 Election stages begin, and the involvement of the community through meaningful public participation.
In other words, the Constitutional Court is not just questioning what the number should be. More importantly, it is asking whether that number can be justified.
Two Things Often Confused
In public discourse, the simplification of parties is often considered synonymous with raising the threshold. In fact, these are two different issues.
The simplification of parties concerns how many political parties are present in parliament. Meanwhile, the simplification of representation relates to how many voters' voices ultimately lose their path to representation.
Concerns about parliamentary fragmentation are not unfounded. A parliament that is too divided can indeed complicate the political decision-making process.
However, the simplification of the number of parties does not always have to be achieved by raising the threshold. We must ensure that in the effort to reduce the number of parties in parliament, too many people's voices do not lose the opportunity to be represented.
The Measure of Justice: Converted Votes
The measure of justice in an election system cannot be seen solely from how many parties succeed in securing seats in parliament. A more fundamental measure is how the people's votes are converted into political representation.
Every vote that does not turn into a seat is ultimately the vote of a citizen who came to the polling station but did not obtain representation through their chosen party.
Therefore, every proposal regarding a new threshold number should be accompanied by transparent calculations. The public needs to know how many votes can be converted into seats, how many votes have the potential to be wasted, and what the impact will be on the effectiveness of parliament.
Without such calculations, a number risks being merely an estimate that then gains legitimacy through legislation.
Listening to Those Without Seats
One of the important aspects in forming threshold rules is ensuring meaningful public participation, including from political parties that do not hold seats in the DPR.
This is important because changes to threshold rules also have a direct impact on them. Not having a seat in the DPR does not mean having no support in the community. These parties still have voters who have exercised their political rights.
Parties outside of parliament certainly should not ask for special treatment. However, they still need to obtain a fair space to express their views, especially when the rules being discussed can determine their chances of political representation in the next election.
Rules for the Future, Not for Today
Election rules will apply to all political forces present in the future, not just to the parties currently in the Senayan legislature.
Therefore, lawmakers need to avoid the temptation to design rules based on the current political configuration.
Changes to the threshold that rely solely on short-term considerations will be difficult to align with the spirit of the Constitutional Court's decision, which requires an objective, rational, proportional, and justifiable basis.
I realize that as the chairman of a political party, I have a position and an interest in this issue. Therefore, I invite everyone to test every argument using a standard that applies to all parties, including the party I lead.
The question must remain the same: what is the purpose of the rule, what is its impact on the people's votes, and was the formation process conducted openly?
Effective and Representative
We need an effective parliament. However, effectiveness should not be built at the expense of the principle of representation.
Ultimately, parliament is born from the people's voice and works for the people's interests.
People's sovereignty must not stop at being a slogan. This principle must truly be present in the design of the election system, including in how we determine the parliamentary threshold.
Tuntas Subagyo is the Chairman of the People's Sovereignty Party.
Comments 0
Write a Comment Share your response