The discourse on the need to increase the level of
parliamentary threshold — the minimum threshold that is required to gain
seats in the parliament — from 2.5 percent in the 2009 legislative
elections to 5 percent in the 2014 elections in the revised elections
law has been increasingly discussed.
The main argument to
increase the parliamentary threshold is to simplify the number of
political parties, while at the same time improving the quality of
democracy and the effectiveness of the presidential government.The problem is that the extreme multiparty system is considered as one culprit that inhibits the workings of the presidential government and disrupts the quality of democracy.
This
condition raises important questions. First, how does the fragmented
multiparty system influence the political stability and the work of the
presidential system in Indonesia? Juan Linz and Arturo Velenzuela
(1994) build an interesting thesis that the presidential system
applied over a multiparty political structure tends to result in a
conflict between presidential and parliamentary institutions and will
present an unstable democracy.
This view is also strengthened by
Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Soberg Shugart (1997), who believe that
this combination will give birth to a minority president and a
divided government, a condition in which the president is very difficult
to get political support in the parliament. In 1998, the reform has led to democracy and the purification of the presidential system in Indonesia.
However,
the formulation of the purer presidentialism mandated is also
difficult to implement when it is combined with the multiparty political
structure.The combination of the vulnerable presidential
system and the multiparty system had been proven strong enough in the
five years of the administration of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) —
Jusuf Kalla (JK), as well as in the one-year of the era of the
SBY-Boediono administration.
At least, there are three political
facts that portrait the instability and vulnerability of the government.
First, the control of the parliament over the government is so strong,
so the policies of the President is very difficult to gain political
support in the parliament. The questionnaire rights and the
threat of withdrawing support for example have always been tools for the
parties in the House to negotiate with the President. The second
fact, in the process of forming and reshuffling the Cabinet, the
political parties — especially the parties in the House of
Representatives — have cut the prerogative right of the President to
intervene. The third fact, the support of the government coalition of
political parties is not effective.
Although quantitatively the
percentage of a coalition of parties supporting the government is very
high — 75 percent of the seats in the House — it is very fragile and
easily cracked. The Bank Century case becomes the clearest portrait of
the fragility.This political reality is proof of the
vulnerability of the combination of presidential and multiparty systems.
Moreover, the personality and leadership style of Yudhoyono are ones
that are compromising and accommodating.
This is what has caused
the presidentialism in the era of the SBY-JK and SBY-Boediono
administrations be run half-heartedly (the half-hearted
presidentialism). Then, is there any compromise that still allows the
establishment of parties and that ensures the government runs
effectively and stable? The multiparty extreme (the high number of
political parties), as it is now, needs to be pushed into a simple
multiparty system, especially in regards to the number of parties in the
parliament, on a daily basis, the President deals with the parties in
the parliament, not the parties participating in the elections.
Therefore,
what needs to be simplified is the number of parties in the parliament,
not the number participating in the elections, to guarantee democracy
and freedom.At least, there is a five-tiered strategy of
simplifying the parliament through institutional engineering: to apply
the district electoral system (plurality/majority system) or mixed
systems (mixed proportional); to minimize the number of electoral
districts (district magnitude); to apply the threshold of seats in the
parliament (parliamentary threshold); to simplify the number of factions
in the parliament through the tightening of requirements for the
formation of a faction (factional threshold), as well as making
regulations to be directed to the formation of two political blocs
(supporters and opposition).
The implementation of the electoral
system — the First Past The Post system (FPTP), in which one
representative is elected from each electoral district — based on proven
experience of some countries will limit the number of parties.
An
alternative solution if the district system still experiences
resistance is to combine the district system and the proportional to
become the mixed system. The German experience provides some lessons that are interesting enough for Indonesia. Strategies
to reduce the scope of electoral districts will also be a catalyst
toward the simplification of political parties. Because the smaller the
scale of electoral districts and the less number of seats contested, the
smaller also the opportunity for small parties to gain seats.
The
increase of the parliamentary threshold in the 2014 elections will also
simplify the parliament. If the parliamentary threshold, is
consistently applied, the number of political parties will continue to
decrease until the ideal number, approximately five political parties in
parliament. After that, the need to simplify the number of factions through the tightening of requirements for the formation of factions.
Ideally,
there are only about three or four factions in the House so that the
government can run more effectively. The next stage, the factions in the
House need to be engineered institutionally into the “two- party
system” in the parliament, that is, the two blocs of permanent
coalitions in the parliament, the coalition government and opposition
supporters. The main objective is to simplify the polarization of
political forces in the parliament to make the political process more
efficient and stable.
Hanta Yuda A.R., Jakarta | Opinion | Tue, August 03 2010
The writer is a political analyst at The Indonesian Institute.
[PS: For Constitutional Law IP Students, Submit your summary based on this article. Due date is 28 of JUne 2013]
25 comments:
Although quantitatively the percentage of a coalition of parties supporting the government is very high 75 percent of the seats in the. The Bank Century case becomes the clearest portrait of the fragility.This political reality is proof of the vulnerability of the combination of presidential and multiparty systems. Moreover, the personality and leadership style of Yudhoyono are ones that are compromising and accommodating.
This is what has caused the presidentialism in the era of the SBY-JK and SBY-Boediono administrations be run half-heartedly. Then, is there any compromise that still allows the establishment of parties and that ensures the government runs The multiparty extreme (the high number of political parties), as it is now, needs to be pushed into a simple multiparty system, especially in regards to the number of parties in the parliament, on a daily basis, the President deals with the parties in the parliament, not the parties participating in the elections.
Therefore, what needs to be simplified is the number of parties in the parliament, not the number participating in the elections, to guarantee democracy and freedom.At least, there is a five-tiered strategy of simplifying the parliament through institutional engineering: to apply the district electoral system (plurality/majority system) or mixed systems (mixed proportional); to minimize the number of electoral districts (district magnitude); to apply the threshold of seats in the parliament (parliamentary threshold); to simplify the number of factions in the parliament through the tightening of requirements for the formation of a faction (factional threshold), as well as making regulations to be directed to the formation of two political blocs (supporters and opposition).
The implementation of the electoral system — the First Past The Post system (FPTP), in which one representative is elected from each electoral district — based on proven experience of some countries will limit the number of parties.
Ideally, there are only about three or four factions in the House so that the government can run more effectively. The next stage, the factions in the House need to be engineered institutionally into the “two- party system” in the parliament, that is, the two blocs of permanent coalitions in the parliament, the coalition government and opposition supporters. The main objective is to simplify the polarization of political forces in the parliament to make the political process more efficient and stable.
parties function played by political parties in multi-party system really tend to refer to the conflict. But this does not make a multi-party system becomes irrelevant in a democracy, because it still will not be able to change the nature of the political party itself, which is trying to to gain power and win support of the people on the basis of competition between parties who have different views. Therefore, efforts can be made to minimize the potential for conflict is to make changes concerning the ways to seize and maintain power, seeking support by leaving in ways that lead to anarchism, such allegations, accusations, and others. The means used should be more compromise through dialogue paths, so that difference is a natural thing in a democracy is not the basis of the onset of the split, but rather a creation of the foundation of a stable national integration
So the important things in the multi party system it is the mentality and commonly also the unity of the party itself , to build certain kind of agreement to build the nation because we know that if there is any contradict party is make an obstacle to established the unity , therefore the result its not stability of the state itself
(Anggit Ts 09410153)
Dear Anggit, I don't see your summary point. Your summary must not more than 300 words and not just "copy-paste" of the article. You need to paraphrase and build your own standing position and comment. Please, rewrite or you lose your assignment point. Thanks.
I think this is a good idea especially the purpose itself to make a better situation in the Indonesian Government. In this idea there are some points, important points actually that give big effect if these ideas become implements in the country.
When I look upon this opinion that said about an idea to increase the parliament threshold in order to limit the political party and also in the similar moment increasing the quality of democracy in Indonesia and effectiveness of the presidential government, I will say that I agree about this idea. Because a better limitation in this context are political parties, will bring enough good result to the state’s life itself.
When there are many political parties that exist in Indonesia, there are also some risks related about political turbulence or political conflict. Example are too many interruption, too many different opinions, and also too many different things that need to managed. Too many political parties not only bring good outcome but also the bad effect. To control something like this is far from easy with the presidential system that Indonesia followed. We could say that there are many interruptions with the existence, and the idea of democracy that Indonesia used is difficult to give it is maximal result.
Different is good and also important, but if there are too much thing that each of them is different, it will become problems. So it is wise to classificate or limits something in order to be easier to manage. And it is same with political parties in Indonesia. In other word free but there are limitations.
So I agree about this idea. When there are some limitations especially for the parliament threshold, hopefully Indonesia will acquire it stability and effectiveness. And we can say that opinion from Hanta Yudha is mostly right.
Based on Hanta Yudha Opinion he talk about the Problem in the Presidential system in Indonesia while the authorithy not maximum with multiparty system. Now the minimum vote is 2,5 % to get seats in Parlementer and this theone of reason why Multiparty system still exist in Parliement
The Reason why the Presidential System not Friendly with Multiparty make not effectiveness for the birocration of democracy and inter the president Program. Like the control of Parlemen too strong even difficult for president to set decisions. , the intervent of parlement to set president authorithy to reshuffle and not-effectiveness of Coalition Politics.
From The several idea of Hanta Yudha I get two best solution , higher the minimum vote from the party to get the seats of parlement and making two block of permanent is coalition and opotition. But its there several issue and its not simple. First, the system of Minimum vote more than more than 2,5 % , the question is if there 10 party and each party get 2,4 % so the seats from 24% for who party? And about the permanent system about coalition and Opposition I Think its not relevant with the principle of DPR itself. However Parlementer is Representative and Responsibility for People not by the permanent itself. And the regulation of the Executive as the product of coalition not always pro and advantage for people , if this context happen unfair coalition have to following regulation.
Hananta Yudha with this solution will make Indonesia Parlementer more effective but must clear . effectiveness in the perspective of minimum vote. Why not combine the some party to get seats exampe party A and B get 2 % why not combine to get 1 Seats . we must get the best solution
By Dimas Ridody (12410232)
Indonesia reform has led to democracy and the purification of the presidential system, but purer presidentialism is difficult to implement because it is combined with the multiparty political structure. This view is also strengthened by Scott Mainwaring who believes that this combination will give a minority president and a divided government, a condition which the president is difficult to get political support in the parliament.
The minimum threshold that is required to gain seats in the parliament in 2009 legislative elections was 2.5 percent, that’s the reason why multiparty happens in Parliament. Because the requirement of percentage to have seat in parliament is too low, So it gives ease to The parties to join in Parliament, which Ideally there are only about three or four factions in the House so that the government can run more effective, Besides that the personality and leadership of the President also influences the system that applied.
Its main purpose, instead of limiting the party to participate in elections, but the party who engaged in parliament, because The party that have seat in Parliament will be always meet The President and has big authority to make any decision that gives impact to the all people. If there are a lot of parties in Parliament it might be lead to crack, because of too much different groups and the role of the Parties in the Parliament as People Representative will not run well.
The minimization of the Parties in Parliament will give good impact to the course of Indonesian Government, based on the article, there are 5 ways to simplifying the parliament through institutional engineering, and one of them is parliamentary threshold. The threshold to have seat in Parliament is increased become 5% and also for the party who want to have seat in Parliament, should have good quality, so Government system in Indonesia will run well and also, In parliament the group of supporters and opposition should clear, so there won’t be a mislead.
Amelia Karina Ja'far
12-410-027
Hanta Yuda, in his opinion raising an issue of the presidential system that is applied over a multiparty political structure in the parliament institution. He emphasizes his idea on how such current system in Indonesia leads to conflict between government and the House that moreover results to the instability and unfair democracy.
Resuming his whole reasoning, the root of this problem is the too-much power of parliament that even dominating the Executive branch of power. In spite of the biggest number of seats in the parliament support the government, the control of DPR over the President is still very strong that he would get difficulties in gaining political support.
Parliament’s right to question and the threat of withdrawing support would indirectly force the President to negotiate with political parties in the House. Besides, it has cut the prerogative right of President in the formation and permutation of cabinet.
Therefore, the simplification of number of political parties in the House, so is the number of fractions, is necessary in order to guarantee the democracy and freedom. He proposes five-tiered strategies as follow: 1) applying the electoral district system (majority system); 2) symplifying the number of electoral districts; 3) applying the threshold of seats in the parliament by maintaining the new regulation of 5% for the minimum threshold that will start in 2014; 4) minimizing the number of factions by tightening the requirements for the formation of a faction; and 5) making regulations for the formation of two political blocs (supporters-opposition)
Ideally, there shall be only five parties with approximately three to four factions in the parliament. He considers that this would be a way to make the political process running more efficient and stable in Indonesia.
Words : 285
Fasya Addina
12410461
In his opinion,Hanta Yudha adduce to increase the parliamentary threshold is to simplify the number of political parties. Previously in the 2009 legislative elections the minimum threshold to gain seats in parliament was 2.5 percent,however currently it revised to be 5 percent in the 2014 elections. The cause is the extreme multiparty system that would make the performance of the president becomes ineffective.
He also stated the argument from both of Juan Liz and Arturo Venezuela that clearly mention that the most conflict among government and parliament is caused by a multiparty political structure which is more dominant than the application of presidential system itself. Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Shugart propose that this kind of combination will raises the minority of President, and the worse issue is the president too often finding difficulty to get any political support in the parliament.
Reviewing the ideas of the article, the good impact of the minimization of the political parties in the parliament would present the good government in Indonesia. At the same time improving the quality of democracy and the effectiveness of Presidential system. Seeing that Indonesia was adopted presidential system,it means the minority of authority should not held by The President as head of government. Therefore the simplification of number of political parties is only for the fraction in the parliament, not about the number of participating in the elections. There are five strategic paths propose by Hanta Yudha, namely applying electoral district system,the number of electoral district,the threshold of seats in the parliament,tightening of requirements of the fraction formation,and making regulation for two of supporters-opposition formation.
And I do agree with what has proposed by Hanta Yudha,that Indonesia need the limitation of the fraction in the parliament just simply because of for the effectiveness of our democracy presidential system.
Words : 299
Dina Khairunisyah (12410342)
in that opinion, I conclude that Hanta Yuda is feeling not comfortable with presidential system and multiparty in Indonesia. Which can disturbs the number of political party in parliamentary threshold. Because he feel presidential and multiparty is not match to run a good and fair democracy.
He take example in era SBY who look strong enough firstly. But raises 3 big problem actually :
1.Parliament to dominate, so the president very difficult to gain a political support
2.In the process of forming and reshuffling the cabinet. Especially the parties in house of representatives, have cut the prerogative right of the president to intervene
3.The support of the government coalition of political parties is not effective
From those problem that appear he give an ideal solution like make three or four factions in the house to be engineered institutionally into the two party system in the parliament. And only exist the two blocs of permanent coalition in the parliament.
And in my opinion the solution to push the number of political party in parliamentary threshold is a good think that can make a more clean politics an fair democracy. But the problem is how can to actualize? How can we push the number of political party that we have? Will be not a simple thing and will be appear a new contradiction and competition to become a strong political party to lead with whole way
Reza Fattah (12410112)
The number seats of parliamentary in Indonesia are sat by the huge number of political parties, and in 2014 the number will be limited only for the parties who win the legislative election 5 %. The decreasing of the number of political parties who involve in the seats of parliamentary is to simplify and create te effectiveness of the presidential system in Indonesia, based on Hanta Yudha’s opinion, and also the repairing the quality of our democracy.
Meanwhile, the distingushing of the government’s decision is ver difficult when the many political parties are getting involve into the parliamentary. The justification of statement before is strengthened by the experts ( Juan Linz and Arturo Velenzuela), they agreed that presidential system combines to the multi party system in parliamentary tends to trigger the conflict between both.
The criticizes of the multiparty system are the weaknesses of this system, when multiparty is applied in the parliamentary and they disturbing even they cut the prerogative right the president, then the difficulty of reshuffling and forming the cabinet also occurs. And also the huge number of parties in the parliamentary only occurs conflict between each parties, the possibility of the case to be occured is big. Because many different views from many political parties in the seats of parliamentary, even the blocs only appear two blocs ( coalition and opposition ).
In other side, when we limit the number of the political parties into parliamentary tends to the lackness of the democracy to getting involves into the warm seats of parliamentary to do some kind of deliberation, without decreasing the number of political parties who willing to participate int the general elections. Otherwise when the 5 % is appplied, the possibility to make the effectiveness of democracy could be run.
WINDURA 12410080
Regarding with the presidential-multiparty system in Indonesia that has been implemented, It brought many problem because that system as culprit that inhabits the government decision. Something weird that happen in our country, Indonesia adopted multiparty system otherwise Indonesia also adopted presidential system although it was not clearly mentioned in UUD 1945.
As the factual problem that had happened in Indonesia. Around five days ago government decided to increase the fuel price but one of political party in the parliament, PKS absolutely denied the government decision as well as PPP denied RUU KAMNAS. Thus, we can say that many political parties in the parliament has strong control over government, and then they can interfere over government’s policies simply means they have cut prerogative right of president, and also if there are many political parties in the parliament, the president will difficult in getting political support.
Therefore to effective the working of presidential government and to stabilize the democracy appears an idea to simplify the number of political parties in the parliament not the number of political party that participate in election to guarantee freedom and democracy, by increasing the level of parliamentary threshold. The minimum threshold that required getting seat in the parliament is 2.5 percent in 2009 and the government will increase to 5 percent in 2014 and now it still being discussed. It was brilliant idea because with this kind of way I believe the number of political parties in the parliament will be decreased.
And also I absolutely agree with the proposal of the Hanta Yudha that proposed five strategies to solve the problem of presidential-Multiparty system in Indonesia. And I believed that if that proposal implemented well the problems will be solved.
Lukman hakim (12410582)
In Harta Yudha’s article, he talks about an issue which concerning about Indonesian presidential system that applied an extreme multiparty political structure over the parliament. According to his opinion, such condition tends to raise political problems and may cause an incomplete and instability of democracy within the state in general, and between the executive government or the president with the parliament or the People’s House of Representatives specifically.
Basically in terms of power, the legislative has a very strong influence over the government, raising difficulties for the president to gain political support in the parliament. To cut the prerogative right of the president by the parliament, the ineffectiveness of the political parties support for the president in the parliament are also real evidences due to main issue.
To decrease, or in another word to simplify, the numbers of political factions in the parliament is the main idea considered as a solution. A few strategies to simplify the number of political fractions are proposed in order to establish and to sustain a proper democracy in Indonesia. First is applying the electoral district system. Second is to minimize the numbers of electoral districts. Third is to apply the threshold of seats in the parliament. Fourth is to decrease the number of factions in the parliament, and the last to form two main and huge parties (supporters and opposition). The main idea is actually to have a less legislative force towards the government and by that to create the political process stabilized and efficient.
I personally agree with the propositions to merely simplify the numbers of political parties in the parliament into four or two main parties with two blocs, as well as to decrease the dominance of the parliament over the government. Doable and logic enough in order build a proper democracy
Dadang Sadika Rude Wardhana
(12410456)
ps: 300 words
The problem of multi parties in the presidential system that has been defined by Hanta Yudha has already shows on how serious this problem. The existance of too many political parties in Indonesian parliament could interrupt to the workings of presidential government and the quality of democracy. Some experts stated, this condition may lead to the conflict of government and parliament institution which then become unstable democracy, besides it probably can arise the minority of president and divided government.
To avoid those possibility, it needed the strategy to simplify the political parties in parliament. According to Hanta Yudha, there are five-tiered strategies: 1) applying the electoral disctrics system (plurality system) or mixed system, 2) narrowing the number electoral disctric (district magnitude), 3) adjust the threshold in the paliamentary’s seats (parliamentary threshold), 4) restrict the requirements for faction’s formation to minimize the quantity of faction in the parliament (factional threshold), 5) make regulation that tends to the formation of two blocs (supporters and opossition).
The recent conversation about increasing the parliamentary threshold, from 2,5 % in 2009 election to 5 % in next 2014 election, can reduce the number of political parties in parliament. If this model is consistantly applied, then the number of political parties will decrease slowly untill the ideal number.
Ideally, at least there shalle be three to five factions in the parliament. Then it need to be engineered institutionally to be two-blocs parties, supporter and opossition. It may be the good way to make political process be more effective and stable.
I personally agree to Hanta Yudha’s idea, that the parliamentary threshold can reduce the number of parliament. In addition, I propose to increase the parliamentary threshold periodically in each election. Therefore, the goal of making the effective and stable governmental and political system is reached.
Uni Tsulasi Putri
12410028
299 words
The Problem of Presidential towards multiparty system which elucidated by Hanta Yudha was shown the lack of those system of presidential combine with multiparty in their parliament, if being implemented as soon as now. Yudha also prove by giving political facts that portrait the flux and susceptibility of the government, such the action of parliament in controlling function was too strong. Many policies of president were unsupported by the parliament. By the questionnaire right and the threat of withdrawing support is being a tool of the parliament to get hand in the presidential policies. Not only that, the parties of house of representative can intervene of the president policies in term of process forming and reshuffling the cabinet. President no longer have fully prerogative right. And also the support of coalition is not effective yet. Combination of Presidential and multiparty system is vulnerable by proofing of political reality. Century Case becomes clearest representation of fragility.
In his position, Yudha also assessing the instability government in the era of SBY-JK, and SBY-Boediono was caused by those varieties of parties. Too much parties involve in parliament may can damaging the stability of running the government in term of over interrupting in the working of presidential and quality of democracy. This opinion is also supported by some expert view in their interesting thesis that the presidential system applied larger than multiparty political composition tends to result in a conflict between presidential and parliamentary institutions and will present unstable democracy. It also strengthened by Scott Mainwaring and Mathew SS in 1997 who believed that this combination will occurs a minority situation of president and a divided government. And those circumstances were happen nowadays.
Yudha give solutions on making simplified on the number of parties in the parliament, not the member participants of the elections, to guarantee democracy and freedom. He mentions five terraced strategy on institutional engineering;
to apply the district electoral system (plurality/majority system) or mixed systems (mixed proportional); to minimize the number of electoral districts (district magnitude); to apply the threshold of seats in the parliament (parliamentary threshold); to simplify the number of factions in the parliament through the tightening of requirements for the formation of a faction (factional threshold), as well as making regulations to be directed to the formation of two political blocs (supporters and opposition).
At the core, the simplification of political parties who sit in the parliament is like a balancing step toward the legislative heavy condition. Yudha argued that the ideal compound in parliament must comprise 3 or 4 factions in the house so that the government can run more effectively with two blocs in parliamentary system. This parliamentary system proposal likes a scheme of debate in British parliamentary system which easier to know the polarization of political forces to make efficient and best political life.
And now, the discourse on the need to increase the level of parliamentary threshold which required getting seat still discussed. it is interesting topic toward better life of good governance.
Nasrullah Mazii
12410343
According to Hanta Yudha opinion in the system of presidential multiparty system, Indonesian have being the one who use the most extreme form of Multiparty system, which could be make indonesia harder to choose the next president, because of the much of choice between the party itself.
His opinion support that Hanta Yudha have a pesimistic thinking to the system of government.
In an Ideal concept, according to the Hanta Yudha opinion, there are only about three or four factions in the House for make the government can run more effectively.
There are a concept that could be adopted by Indonesia is the concept of combining the district system and the proportional to become the mixed system. The system of German which reduce the scope of electoral districts get effect to the catalyst toward the simplification of political parties. That mean, if the scale of electoral districts get smaller and the seats contested is lesser than before, the smaller also the chance for small parties to gain seats.
My personal opinion, I agree that the multiparty of Indonesia is too strong, that make the party is out of control. the concept of multiparty which extreme in one way is strongly support the rights of Speech, but it must be being controlled
Hanta Yudha considers the multi-party system would render a negative impact to the government and disrupt the quality of democracy. Since the minimum threshold that is required to gain seats in the parliament was 2,5 percent, the numerous of party in the parliament could be consider as excessive. The multi-party system tends to be more trigger the conflict between parliament and presidential institution. like as we can see in the these days in the practice, it also would take a long time for the parliament to decide some circumstances because the excessiveness of the parties in the parliament cause hard to unify the diversity.
people might already have had enough with those conflict. in order to settle down the issue, Hanta Yudha propose to decrease the number of parties in the parliament, to prevent conflict cause by the multi-party system that we have here, in Indonesia.
Hanta Yudha propose an ideal and effective democracy because it's not the number of parties that is decrease in the election, it is the parties in the parliament. and by decreasing the number of parties in the parliament, it would create such harmonize and ideal system because it minimize the conflict that would happen. this system is very effective.
Hanta Yudha's proposal needs to get a consideration by the government in order to conduct a better system for the people. a better life, also a better future.
Lintang Kinasih Wijayani 12410363
Regarding to the governmental issue of our very own beloved motherland, The Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, Hanta Yudha asserted his opinion towards the system of presidential-multiparty. In which, he stated that the certain system will only end up whether as the instability or conflict within our nation.
Moreover, with the discourse of needing to increase the golden chair of the parliament from 2.5 percent in 2009 to 5 percent in the upcoming 2014 election. As the matter of fact, to support Hanta Yudha’s opinion, two other scholars had declared their thesis; according to Juan Linz and Arturo Velenzuela (1994), the presidential-multiparty system tendentiously leading to “war” between the president and the parliament, which also leads to the instability of democracy.
Sitting on the same table, the assertion of Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Soberg Shugart (1997) had strengthened Hanta Yudha’s position. They said that this such system will be harder for president to gain political support. Especially in the making of the president’s policy, how come it can be run if it gets no support?
On the other side of the door, there are three political facts that show the picture of vulnerable and instable government; 1. Way too strong control of parliament to government, 2. President’s prerogative rights to intervene had been cut, 3. Support of political parties coalition ain’t effective.
Therefore, there are several ways to fix the broken by simplifying the numbers of political parties in parliament; 1. Applying district electoral system or mixed system, 2. Minimizing numbers of political districts, 3. Applying threshold of seats in parliament, 4. Simplifying numbers of factions in parliament, 5. Making regulation of two political blocks only (supporter and opposite).
Finally with twoparty system with ideally three or four factions in the parliament will lead to effective, stable democracy.
300 words written by:
Nur Gemilang Mahardhika (12410545)
Hanta Yudha argued about the problem of Presidential-Multiparty system that adopted by Indonesia, and currently this kind of system has not been implemented effectively, in his opinion stated clearly what is the main problem, he explained that in the parliamentary itself have too many elements of authority that disrupt the quality of democracy, and produce ineffectiveness itself. This problem stem from multiparty system influence the political stability and the work of presidential system, and this proved in Juan Linz and Arturo Velenzuela’s (1994) Thesis, it stated that the presidential system applied over a multiparty political structure tends to result in a conflict between presidential and parliamentary institutions, this will present an unstable democracy and also the president is very difficult to get political support in the parliament.
Hanta Yudha’s solutions are the number of political parties needs to be pushed into a simple multiparty system included with parties in the parliament ( not the number participating in the elections) to guarantee democracy and freedom. Hanta Yudha’s Five-tiered strategy are, first apply the district electoral system or mixed systems, second to minimize the number of electoral districts, third to apply the threshold of seats in the parliament(from 2,5% become 5% threshold), fourth to simplify the number of factions in the parliament through the tightening of requirements for the formation of a faction, as well as making regulations to be directed to the formation of two political blocs (supporters and opposition).
I personally agree with the Hanta Yudha’s opinion, from the fact itself have been proved that the current system is not effective yet, if this such kind solution can be implemented fully, this will present the real stable democracy and fully effective system.
Hanif Nur Ahmad
12410015
Here from the article which had been written by Hanta Yudha A.R., entitled The Problem of Presidential – Multiparty System becomes an interesting topic to be discussed by Indonesian citizen specifically from the politic and law academician and also the expert. I personally think that this is the important problem we face now in our state, why? Because Indonesia nowadays has the legislative heavy constitution which has the very strong power on parliament while we implement the Presidential system. This condition means that the working of Presidential system does not work effectively because there are many interventions from the parliament, such as the President’s policy. This situation is exacerbated by the extreme multiparty system. Because when the presidential system applied over multiparty political structure it tends to make a conflict between presidential and parliamentary institutions, and it will appear inconsistently democracy.
Regarding to the writer’s opinion I completely agree what he has proposed, why? Because from the problems which had been proven and occurred, also the strategies to get the better condition in terms of presidential system is good way to be done. By simplifying the number of political parties in parliament it will give stability of the working of presidential system and better democracy. Based on what we have known present that the extreme multiparty system is very disturbing the working journey of the presidential system, government cannot run their own task well only caused by the high level of intervention from the parliament. What the government to do now is how they can run their job effectively without any full intervention from the extreme multiparty parliament. However by the combination between presidential and multiparty political structure is difficult to be run, at least by simplifying the number of political parties in parliament it will give stability to the democracy.
Achmad Dion Ragil Kusuma ( 12410301 )
300 words
The Parlimentary and the presidential executive power some times have problem which cause not stability the democracy in state, the cases in iNdonesia which already sumaryze by Hanta Yudha show that we have basic choose to choosen the presidential or parlimentary system which could begin in the system in our state, as we know in our state have presidential system but not fully have much power to make decission , and have must be approved first in parliementary , in other hand it is good, but in one hand this is make unstability performance of state if parliementary have big power than president because we use multyparty system which caused the the control of the parliament over the government is so strong.
The one important things in the multi party system it is the mentality and commonly, also the unity of the parliementary and executive power itself, The right things also in my opinion if we bringing back our constitution to last amandment which give decrease parliementary power, however it is contradict which most of people , because traumatic of "new order era" which make enough executive power to hold the big power over the state organ, but according to my mind it is cannot be happen againt because in this era we have constitutional court which pertaining and monitoring the state organ including executive power based on constitutuion.
The conclution itself it might be alright if we decrease the power of parliementary and increase the executive power or make balance system between all stste organ with make amendment of our constitution , but the good prosperity nation cannot be build if there is no Good Mentality and great attitude (Anggit Ts 09410153)
Based on this article, The parliamentary threshold will simplify the amount of parties that represent in the parliament, and that will make the presidential government will run more effective. Because the smaller the amount of political parties in Parliament, the factions will be simplify, and the presidential government will run more effective.
The reason why with the parliamentary threshold increase will make the presidential government run more effective because firstly, the multiparty system is more like Parliamentary government, not presidential.
In the multiparty system, like in Juan Linz and Arturo Velenzuela thesis, can cause conflict between presidential and parliamentary institution and from that the president will be difficult to get political support in the parliament, like stated by Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Soberg Shugart.
So i think it is good to have the parliamentary threshold increase. Because it will simplify the political parties in parliament, while the democracy still running well, because simpler systems are better than the complicate one.
Rahadyan Rifkhi
12410238
I get the point that the government avoid authoritarian government after the fall of Suharto. Therefore we have to made amendments of the Constitution 1945 to avoid the case above. But in the fact, combination of presidential system and system multi party instead make new problems. It is reducing the authority of the president and a lot of disharmony between government agencies.
I think different ideology of every political party are the main problem. They still carry their own party interests. Not the public interest. So we have a lot of clashes between political interests. President's powers are also increasingly limited. Very difficult to issue a policy without opposition from the House
I strongly support the solution of the authors by reducing the number of political parties. Number of political parties is considered to be the cause. There are actually several ways to solve it. Like to change the presidential system into parliamentary. But it may be difficult to apply it.
Reduction in the number of political parties would not be any good without any awareness of the public and government about the destination nation. As our state motto "Bhineka Tunggal Ika"
Baskara Nabla Putra (09410398)
Post a Comment