Between Idealism and Pragmatism: The Tension of People's Sovereignty and Political Party Control in Indonesia's Representative Democracy
Keywords:
People’s sovereignty, political party control, parliamentary threshold, democratic legitimacy, IndonesiaAbstract
This study examines the persistent tension between the ideal of people’s sovereignty and the pragmatic dominance of political party control within Indonesia’s representative democracy. Rooted in the constitutional mandate that sovereignty resides in the people, the analysis investigates how institutional mechanisms, such as parliamentary thresholds, candidate selection systems, and party discipline, mediate or constrain that sovereignty. Employing a qualitative normative-analytical method supported by empirical data from the General Elections Commission (KPU), Kompas Research and Development, and the Indonesia National Survey Project (INSP), the study critically assesses how legal structures and political behavior interact to shape democratic legitimacy. The findings reveal that electoral thresholds, while justified as stabilizing instruments, have systematically excluded millions of votes from legislative representation, as evidenced by the 17.3 million “wasted votes” recorded in the 2024 election. Simultaneously, persistent low public trust in political parties, averaging between 44% and 55% from 2017 to 2023, demonstrates a widening distance between citizens and party institutions. The discussion highlights that these patterns perpetuate a pragmatic logic of governance that prioritizes stability, patronage, and coalition survival over inclusivity and accountability. Although reform efforts, such as judicial scrutiny of threshold policies and calls for internal party democratization, indicate ongoing attempts to realign practice with constitutional ideals, their impact remains limited by entrenched elite interests. Ultimately, the study argues that Indonesia’s democratic consolidation depends on recalibrating the institutional balance between representation and control, ensuring that sovereignty is not merely procedural but substantively exercised by the people..
Downloads
References
Aulia, E., & Isra, S. (2024). The Conception of People's Sovereignty in Indonesia: Mohammad Hatta's Thought Approach. Petita, 9, 146. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/petita9&div=15&id=&page=
Bader, V. (2014). Crisis of political parties and representative democracies: rethinking parties in associational, experimentalist governance. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 17(3), 350-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2014.886380
Cox, G. W. (1997). Making votes count: strategic coordination in the world's electoral systems. cambridge university Press.
Devine, D. (2024). Does political trust matter? A meta-analysis on the consequences of trust. Political Behavior, 46(4), 2241-2262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-024-09916-y
Dunleavy, P., & Margetts, H. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of electoral reform. International political science review, 16(1), 9-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251219501600102
Eddy, D. C., Krishnamurty, S., Grosse, I. R., Wileden, J. C., & Lewis, K. E. (2013). A normative decision analysis method for the sustainability-based design of products. Journal of Engineering Design, 24(5), 342-362. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2012.745931
Firmansyah, R. (2024). Reconstruction of Constitutional Law to Realize Democracy with Integrity. Journal of Law and Humanity Studies, 1(1), 19-25. https://doi.org/10.59613/4y0f0n96
Goldfrank, B. (2007). The politics of deepening local democracy: Decentralization, party institutionalization, and participation. Comparative Politics, 147-168. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20434031
Hazan, R. Y., & Rahat, G. (2006). Candidate selection: methods and consequences. Handbook of party politics, 109-121.
Hohendorf, L. (2025). Tension, Dilemma and Conflict in Party-Candidate Campaign Strategies: Diverging Positions and Districts in National Elections. Taylor & Francis.
Iancu, B. (2025). Militant Democracy and Rule of Law in Three Paradoxes: The Annulment of the Romanian Presidential Elections. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-025-00245-8
Jaffrey, S., & Warburton, E. (2024). Indonesia on the edge of competitive authoritarianism. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 60(3), 283-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00074918.2024.2426571
Kompas. (2023). “Political Party Electability, Stable but Less Rooted”, https://www.kompas.id/artikel/en-elektabilitas-parpol-stabil-tapi-kurang-berakar, accesed 17 October 2025.
Kompas. (2024). “2024 Election Results and Changes in the Map of Political Power in Parliament”, https://www.kompas.id/artikel/en-hasil-pemilu-2024-dan-berubahnya-peta-kekuatan-politik-di-parlemen, accesed 17 October 2025.
Lenard, P. T. (2008). Trust your compatriots, but count your change: The roles of trust, mistrust and distrust in democracy. Political Studies, 56(2), 312-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00693.x.
Luna, J. P. (2014). Segmented representation: Political party strategies in unequal democracies. OUP Oxford.
Macedo, S. (2006). Democracy at risk: How political choices undermine citizen participation, and what we can do about it. Rowman & Littlefield.
MKRI. (2024). “Parliamentary Threshold Provision Conditionally Constitutional for Elections Starting 2029”, https://en.mkri.id/news/details/2024-02-29/Parliamentary_Threshold_Provision_Conditionally_Constitutional_for_Elections_Starting_2029, accesed 10 October 2025.
Muhtadi, B., Hui, Y.-F., & Negara, S. D. (2023). Society. In The Indonesia National Survey Project 2022: Engaging with Developments in the Political, Economic and Social Spheres (pp. 39–52). Chapter, ISEAS–Yusof Isha”k Institute.
Müller, W. C. (2007). 11 Political institutions and linkage strategies. Patrons, clients, and policies, 251. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511585869.011
Norris, P. (2012). Making democratic governance work: How regimes shape prosperity, welfare, and peace. Cambridge University Press.
Norris, P. (2017). Transparency in electoral governance. Election Watchdogs: Transparency, Accountability and Integrity, 4-29.
Observerid. (2024). “Strengthening Democracy Revision of Parliamentary Threshold – Justice for voters”, https://observerid.com/strengthening-democracy-revision-of-parliamentary-threshold-justice-for-voters/, accesed 17 October 2025.
Ojo, O. G. (2022). Public Trust and Citizen Engagement as Tools of Democrcay for Good Governance in Nigeria.
Permana, P. A. (2017). Local elite adjustment in Indonesia's democratization: case studies of North Sumatra and East Java, 1998-2013 (Doctoral dissertation, Dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, 2017).
Qolbu, N. Z., & Wulandari, L. (2024). The Impact of The Parliamentary Threshold Policy On Small Parties: The Failure of The Partai Persatuan Pembangunan To Meet The Parliamentary Threshold In The 2024 Election. Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities, 4(4), 453-461. https://doi.org/10.38035/jlph.v4i4.382
Simatupang, K. H. (2025). Multi-party Systems and Parliamentary Thresholds: The Case of Indonesia’s Presidential System with Comparisons to Germany and Taiwan. Journal of Political Issues, 6(2), 99-109. https://doi.org/10.33019/jpi.v6i2.291
Stapenhurst, R., Johnston, N., & Pelizzo, R. (Eds.). (2006). The role of parliament in curbing corruption. World Bank Publications.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2004). Descriptive versus evaluative bibliometrics. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems, 373-388. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_17.
