Early in 2025, the Constitutional Court annulled the 20 percent presidential threshold requirement in Article 222 of Law No. 7/2017 (Elections Law). Together with an earlier 2023 ruling that mandated the House of Representatives (DPR) to revise the 4 percent parliamentary threshold proportionally for the upcoming 2029 elections, the Court presents a rare opportunity to reimagine Indonesia’s electoral framework, effectively dismantling artificial barriers that guarded national politics for decades.
These rulings must guide the House’s current revision to the Elections Law to reflect proportional representation and constitutional fairness. Yet, Senayan has signaled a parliament scrambling to protect its status quo rather than honoring the spirit of the ruling. Instead of accepting the end of the threshold era, lawmakers are actively floating new, convoluted mechanisms designed to maintain their gatekeeping privileges.
1. Status quo’s defense of the 4 percent parliamentary threshold
For years, the political establishment has defended the 4 percent parliamentary threshold using the “effective governance” argument. The claim relies on the premise that limiting the number of factions in parliament prevents extreme fragmentation; making it easier for legislation to pass. Preventing deadlocks is a valid rationale for a multi-party presidential system like Indonesia’s, but Indonesian presidents have built large coalitions that cover most of the House.
Current President Prabowo Subianto’s KIM Plus coalition covers 81 percent of seats in Senayan. Jokowi’s second-term governing coalition also reached 81.9 percent. These facts suggest that using effective governance as an excuse to impose high barriers to entry only justifies consolidating power among a handful of major parties.
This gatekeeping creates massive democracy costs; over 17 million votes never translate into seats in the 2024 general election. Out of roughly 151 million valid national votes, the 4 percent threshold required a party to secure approximately 6 million votes to enter the legislature.
The United Development Party (PPP) secured 5.87 million votes, or 3.87 percent of the national total. Because they fell a fraction of a percent short, the party was entirely wiped out of the House for the first time in about 50 years. As a result, nearly 6 million citizens cast valid ballots for a party that earned enough votes to win seats in some districts, but still had no representation at the national level.
They weren’t the only ones. The Indonesia Solidarity Party (PSI) also had 5 candidates would have been seated if only the party clear this threshold. This shows a democratic system that intentionally discards the voices of millions of voters. If a candidate wins the majority of votes in their district, they should be able to secure the seat at the parliament. A higher threshold risks losing the essence of proportional representation in an electoral democracy.
After a Constitutional Court ruling highlighted the disenfranchisement caused by the 4 percent threshold, the ruling parties’ response has been spectacularly tone-deaf. Instead of recognizing the need for more proportional barriers, parties like Gerindra and Golkar have floated proposals to raise the threshold to 5 percent. Nasdem has pushed the boundary even further, suggesting a 7 percent threshold. These defy all democratic logic. If a 4 percent erased 17 million votes, a 7 percent threshold would silence many many more citizens..
We think these suggestions have nothing to do with effective governance or legislative efficiency. They are overt attempts by incumbent cartels to shrink the political arena, eliminate smaller challengers, and divide the legislative pie among an ever-shrinking circle of elites.
We do not have to look far to see that democracy functions just as well without these barriers. At the subnational levels, Regional People’s Representative Councils (DPRD) operate entirely without a parliamentary threshold. Parties win seats directly proportional to the votes they gather in their electoral districts. PSI has exactly 1 seat in various local parliaments. No mainstream discourse suggests that local governance is failing because of excessive party fragmentation; at least none that we’re aware of.
If the proportional system works across Indonesia’s regions to capture the diverse political will of local populations, there is no reason it cannot work nationally. The insistence on a national threshold is a manufactured necessity.
2. Inventing a new gatekeeper in a recent presidential threshold maneuver
The Court’s ruling on the presidential threshold being unconstitutional is also at risk of being similarly thwarted by lawmakers desperate to maintain their leverage. With the 20 percent barrier struck down, emerged in recent discussions in the House an entirely new hurdle: requiring a presidential ticket to be backed by a coalition of at least two parliamentary factions.
This requirement blatantly disregards the Court’s mandate. The ruling should be interpreted as a clear directive that parliament cannot arbitrarily add thresholds to limit candidates. If a single party has the confidence, the internal machinery, and the public support to nominate its own candidate, it should not be legally forced into a marriage of convenience.
Forcing a minimum two-faction coalition is purely political maneuvering. It exists to guarantee that the major parties remain indispensable brokers in every presidential race. It forces transactional politics, where policy platforms take a backseat to backroom deals over cabinet seats and resource allocation. By trying to invent new rules to replace the old ones, the parliament is signaling that it views the electorate not as constituents to be represented, but as obstacles to be managed.
The House should choose meaningful democracy
The House of Representatives now faces a choice. Lawmakers can accept the Constitutional Court’s rulings as the foundation for a more mature, representative democracy; or they can keep treating election law as an incumbent protection racket. Interpreting the rulings in good faith means rethinking the arbitrary 4 percent parliamentary barrier, rejecting the proposals for higher thresholds, and stopping the invention of backdoors like the two-faction presidential rule.
It is time to come to a truly open, proportional, and fair electoral framework. If a party wins a district, they deserve a seat. If a party wants to nominate a presidential candidate, they should face the voters, not a coalition gatekeeper. Anything less betrays public trust in our democratic process.