Antara Idealisme dan Pragmatisme: Ketegangan Antara Kedaulatan Rakyat dan Pengendalian Partai Politik dalam Demokrasi Perwakilan Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65310/cr5e0165Kata Kunci:
Kedaulatan rakyat, kendali partai politik, ambang batas parlemen, legitimasi demokratis, IndonesiaAbstrak
Studi ini mengkaji ketegangan yang terus-menerus antara idealisme kedaulatan rakyat dan dominasi pragmatis kontrol partai politik dalam demokrasi perwakilan Indonesia. Berakar pada mandat konstitusional bahwa kedaulatan berada di tangan rakyat, analisis ini menyelidiki bagaimana mekanisme institusional, seperti ambang batas parlemen, sistem seleksi calon, dan disiplin partai, memediasi atau membatasi kedaulatan tersebut. Menggunakan metode kualitatif normatif-analitis yang didukung oleh data empiris dari Komisi Pemilihan Umum (KPU), Kompas Research and Development, dan Indonesia National Survey Project (INSP), studi ini secara kritis mengevaluasi bagaimana struktur hukum dan perilaku politik berinteraksi untuk membentuk legitimasi demokratis. Temuan menunjukkan bahwa ambang batas pemilu, meskipun dibenarkan sebagai alat stabilisasi, secara sistematis telah mengesampingkan jutaan suara dari perwakilan legislatif, seperti yang terlihat dari 17,3 juta “suara terbuang” yang tercatat dalam pemilu 2024. Secara bersamaan, kepercayaan publik yang rendah terhadap partai politik, rata-rata antara 44% dan 55% dari 2017 hingga 2023, menunjukkan jarak yang semakin lebar antara warga negara dan institusi partai. Pembahasan menyoroti bahwa pola-pola ini mempertahankan logika pragmatis pemerintahan yang memprioritaskan stabilitas, patronase, dan kelangsungan koalisi daripada inklusivitas dan akuntabilitas. Meskipun upaya reformasi, seperti pengawasan yudisial terhadap kebijakan ambang batas dan seruan untuk demokratisasi internal partai, menunjukkan upaya berkelanjutan untuk menyelaraskan praktik dengan idealisme konstitusional, dampaknya tetap terbatas oleh kepentingan elit yang sudah mapan. Pada akhirnya, studi ini berargumen bahwa konsolidasi demokrasi Indonesia bergantung pada penyesuaian kembali keseimbangan institusional antara representasi dan kontrol, memastikan bahwa kedaulatan tidak hanya bersifat prosedural tetapi juga secara substansial dijalankan oleh rakyat.
Unduhan
Referensi
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.
