Following the Constitutional Court’s (MK) decision to abolish the presidential candidacy threshold, the debate over removing the parliamentary threshold has sparked both pros and cons.
Some believe removing the threshold would ensure representation for all parties in parliament.
Meanwhile, others, including those in the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR), argue that having more parties could negatively affect the effectiveness of parliamentary work.
Alfath Bagus Panuntun, an expert on politics and government from Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), highlighted that the debate centers on two main aspects: democratic inclusivity and government effectiveness.
Panuntun explained that proponents of removing the threshold argue that the votes of smaller parties that fail to reach the 4% threshold are wasted and left unrepresented in parliament.
“If we calculate it, the votes discarded from smaller parties could reach a significant percentage,” he said on Wednesday, Feb 5, 2025.
On the other hand, Panuntun acknowledged the concerns of those in the DPR who opposed the removal.
He noted that a higher number of parties would make managing diverse political interests more challenging, potentially affecting the effectiveness of DPR operations.
“More parties would increase the workload related to faction management, task distribution, and overall DPR performance,” he explained.
Panuntun pointed out that the 4% threshold is not arbitrary but a compromise between democratic inclusivity and government effectiveness.
“Previously, the threshold was 3.5%, but it was raised to 4% in the 2017 Electoral Law revision. This figure aims to balance political representation with governmental stability,” he said.
He argued that maintaining or even increasing the parliamentary threshold could help clarify party ideologies.
“With a higher threshold, political parties need to have clear ideologies and programs. Otherwise, it becomes difficult to differentiate one party from another,” Panuntun added.
However, Panuntun noted that the general public does not place much importance on the threshold itself.
“What matters is that the DPR functions properly, remains open to criticism, and genuinely works for the people,” he stated.
He emphasized that the DPR’s effectiveness should be a top priority.
The legislative process and government oversight could run more smoothly with fewer, more structured parties.
“We must avoid a situation where the system serves the interests of politicians rather than the people,” he stressed.
In conclusion, Panuntun reiterated that every policy has its pros and cons.
However, in the context of Indonesia, he believes it is better to maintain or even raise the parliamentary threshold to improve government effectiveness.
“This policy should be based on the current needs of the public. If we want an effective DPR, then the current threshold should be maintained or increased,” he concluded.
Author: Rahma Khoirunnisa
Editor: Gusti Grehenson
Post-editor: Lintang
Photographs by: Donnie and Kompas