Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia: Experimenting with a Developmental Conception of Democracy

By Rosa Ristawati

This post argues that the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, or MKRI) has gradually been internalizing a conception of democracy sensitive to the demands of the Indonesian Constitution for democracy that materializes both in free and fair elections and in the ensuring of an inclusive landscape for party competition. Such a role, traceable in the Court’s case law since its inception, reflects the spirit of democracy in the constitutional amendments during the periods of 1999 and 2002.[1] The developmental conception of democracy increases the chances for the Constitutional Court to help sustain a robust competitive party-political environment in Indonesia.

Understanding the Power of Elections Beyond Voting: Snapshots of the Court’s Case Law

A generic, but important reference to democracy appeared in the early years of the Court’s operation, when it pointed out that democracy has to comply with the legal framework and the Constitution in terms of human rights protection, meaning that any discrimination for the new political party is a barrier for democracy.[2]

At the same time, the Court was anxious to present political parties as the key institution of Indonesian democracy. In a landmark decision,[3] it set the stage for recognizing elections as central for democracy, but not only through the act of voting but also the spirit of public participation they trigger more broadly. The Court introduced the concept of “inclusive democracy” by mandating the adoption of an open-list proportional electoral system for the DPR, DPD, and DPRD (the national and regional legislatures).[4] This decision may grant voters greater autonomy in selecting individual legislative candidates based on majority vote, rather than voting solely through party lists. Such an open proportional model of election may ensure the people to directly determine who will represent them, and hence give them an edge over the political parties.

The Court affirmed that democracy cannot be measured solely by the involvement of political parties, but must also provide space for direct public participation in choosing their representatives. Democracy reflects the commitment of “from the people, by the people, and for the people.” The Court’s commitment to the electoral system type emerges from its understanding of “an ideal democracy” as one where the people are at the center and hold sovereignty. According to the Court, the open proportional system is more suited to offer room for the people to participate in deciding who will represent their interest.

A building with a front of columns made out of white stone.
The Indonesian Constitutional Court in Jakarta. Photo via Wikimedia Commons.

Given its formal powers, the Court continued to adjudicate cases pertaining to the general elections. In two decisions (from 2013[5] and 2019[6]), the Court broadened the concept of democracy to include open candidacy and a direct electoral system. In the Court’s view, fair and equal political competition is enhanced by simultaneous elections, as they are more in line with the principles of justice and democratic efficiency. In other words, simultaneous elections enable the political legitimacy obtained by leaders and representatives to be considered more aligned with the will of the people. These rulings may underscore the importance of institutional stability and the legitimacy of direct elections as essential components of a democratic process. Here, democracy is more about integrity, efficiency, and equality in the process of general election.

Aligned with its electoral case law was the Court’s promotion of public participation in the legislative process (the law-making process). A landmark ruling in this regard[7] concerns the judicial review of the 2020 Job Creation Law (Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja). In this decision, the Court introduced the concept of “meaningful participation” in the law-making process. The Court defined this concept through three key elements: the right to be heard, the right to be considered, and the right to receive an explanation. These components collectively form the standard of meaningful participation, underscoring that democratic legitimacy in legislation depends on inclusive and substantive public engagement.[8]

Opening the Democratic Door for Elections: Developing the Court’s Conception of Democracy in 2024 and Beyond

In 2024, the Court issued several important decisions that further expanded public participation in the electoral process. Two of these[9] addressed[10] the electoral threshold for political parties in local elections and reviewed the minimum age requirement for candidates running for local government leadership. Through these decisions, the Court sought to broaden opportunities for citizen involvement in democratic processes at the local level. The Court emphasized that democracy must guarantee equal access for all candidates in the electoral system and that political candidacy should not be monopolized by party elites or particular individuals.

In another significant 2024 decision,[11] the Court declared the presidential threshold unconstitutional. This ruling marks a major shift of democracy in Indonesia’s presidential election system. Specifically, the Court reviewed the legal provision[12] concerning General Elections, which had imposed a threshold for nominating presidential candidates. The Court decided that the presidential threshold is unconstitutional. It considered that the requirement imposed on political parties or coalitions to obtain a certain number of votes to nominate presidential and vice-presidential candidates contradicts the Constitution and violates particular constitutional rights. The decision reflects the protection of citizens’ constitutional rights, which must be prioritized in the implementation of democracy in Indonesia.

This decision on the elimination of the presidential threshold in Indonesia is a response to the democratic uncertainty, injustice, and imbalance of Indonesia’s political system. The presidential threshold partially contributed to this malaise, previously carrying the sense of democratic deficit for the political system, particularly in the nomination of presidential and vice-presidential candidates. In its reasoning, the Court refers to the experience of five presidential elections as one of the legal considerations. The Court considered that the presidential threshold is seen as not benefiting Indonesia’s democratic system, especially in the presidential and vice-presidential nomination process. In this context, the Court has brought back the essence of direct presidential and vice-presidential elections by the people. The shift in the Constitutional Court’s stance should be highly appreciated as an effort to uphold democratic values and restore democracy.

In line with the Court’s previous imagining of democracy going beyond free elections and political parties as their key protagonist, this decision may help dismantle the hegemony of dominant political parties, which has eroded the democratic system by closing off democratic avenues. The Court’s removal of the threshold is expected to restore both constitutional and electoral justice. By enabling political parties to propose multiple viable candidates for president and vice president, this ruling will open the door to more inclusive democratic representation. The Decision may provide more space for minority political parties and reduce the overbearing influence of majority parties in the presidential and vice-presidential nomination process. The transformative legal breakthrough responds to long-standing democratic deficits and systemic imbalance within the electoral framework. The Court’s arguments regarding the experiences of the five presidential elections strengthened the observation that the presidential threshold has not served the nation’s democratic development. The Court emphasized that the provision restricts political rights and undermines the sovereignty of the people. Furthermore, the Court argued that the threshold served more as a barrier than a safeguard, creating structural inequality in the electoral process.

Furthermore, in several rulings,[13] the Court broadened the meaning of democracy by emphasizing the importance of equal political access. In these decisions, the Court stated that barriers such as the minimum age for regional head candidates or the presidential threshold can hinder an inclusive and open democracy. Therefore, the Court holds that democracy must guarantee equal political rights for every citizen, without discrimination.

The Court’s decisions in electoral cases are not without controversy, however. In its 2025 decision separating national and local elections,[14] it adopted the rationale to ease access for citizens to participate in the democratic electoral process and thereby make that process more open and accessible. However, the decision introduces a significant, abrupt shift in managing elections with several unresolved questions, and may also distract attention from more pressing concerns with the role of excessive wealth in steering electoral campaigns in Indonesia.[15]

The Court’s Effort to Enrich the Concept of Democracy from a Developmental Perspective

The journey towards the 2024 presidential threshold decision was supplemented by the Court viewing democracy not merely as an electoral mechanism, but as a value system encompassing participation, openness, justice, and equality. According to the Court, democracy is a political process that provides the broadest possible space for the people to determine their direction and leaders, and to prevent the dominance of power that undermines the people’s will.

This framing has been conducive to extending the concept of democracy particularly via the principles of justice and political inclusion. In two decisions,[16] the Court considered the barriers of democracy may come from various limitations such as the presidential threshold (see above) and the minimum age (30 years) for running the head of the local government. To achieve electoral justice in the process of election, the principle is very important to make sure the democratic mechanism has been working well. The Court has opened and provided a fairer competition in the election.

The Court said that democracy has to address equality and nondiscrimination as components of citizens’ political rights. To this extent, the Court does not limit the concept of democracy only to the electoral mechanism. Instead, the Court emphasizes that the values of democracy include participation, transparency, fairness, and equality beyond elections. According to the Court, democracy is more than a political process of giving the room for the people to decide the direction of the political community and who will represent them. These could be the foundations of a broader, developmental conception of democracy in the Indonesian Court’s case law.

Conclusion

This post has discussed selected decisions in which the Indonesian Constitutional Court attempted to conceptualize democracy more explicitly. The principles of democracy have included public participation in the open-proportional system of election, the open and fair contest of election (the simultaneous resources elections provide for political legitimacy and free competition), political inclusion (the elimination of threshold and minimum age judgment), and equal access to the political system (anti-discrimination standards for candidates). Ultimately, the Court’s discourse in these decisions leans towards formulating an obligation for democracy to give room and opportunity for all people without exceptions.


AI was used for this contribution for grammatical checks/language editing.


Notes

[1] Al Izzati, R., T. Dartanto, D. Suryadarma, and A. Suryahadi. 2024. Direct Elections and Trust in State and Political Institutions: Evidence from Indonesia’s Election Reform. ADBI Working Paper 1432. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. Available: https://doi.org/10.56506/MMHA6573, https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/296824/1/adbi-wp1432_0.pdf.

[2] Decision No. 011-017/PUU-I/2003.

[3] Decision No. 22-24/PUU-VI/2008.

[4] The Court Decision Resume can be read in: https://www.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/sinopsis/sinopsis_perkara_123_22-24+PUU-VI+2008.pdf.

[5] The Court Decision No. 14/PUU-XI/2013 on the review of General Election particularly on the presidential threshold can be read in: https://www.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_sidang_1612_14-PUU-2013-telahucap-23Jan2014.pdf.

[6] The Court Decision No. 55/PUU-XVII/2019 can be read in:  https://www.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_6797.pdf.

[7] Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020.

[8] The Court Decision on particular issue of meaningful participation (Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020) can be read in: https://www.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_8240_1637822490.pdf.

[9] Decision No. 60/PUU-XXII/2024. The Court Decision can be read in: https://www.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_11003_1724130779.pdf.

[10] Decision No. 70/PUU-XXII/2024. The Court Decision can be read in: https://www.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_10997_1724127749.pdf.

[11] Decision No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024. The Court Decision No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024 can be read in:  https://www.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_11344_1735807848.pdf. This one was also connected to Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, which can be read in: https://www.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_9332_1697427438.pdf.

[12] Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017.

[13] Decision No. 60/PUU-XXII/2024 and Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023.

[14] Decision No. 135/PUU-XXII/2024.

[15] See Prayitno, A. 2025. The Paradox of the Constitutional Court’s Decision. Kompas.id. Available: https://www.kompas.id/artikel/en-paradoks-putusan-mk.

[16] Decision No. 60/PUU-XXII/2024 and Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023.


About the Author

Rosa Ristawati, S.H., LL.M is a lecturer of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law, Airlangga University Indonesia. She teaches courses in Constitutional Law, Comparative Constitutions, Comparative Constitutional Law, Constitutional Court and Procedural Law, Constitutional Theory, publishes books and articles on constitutional law, and creates opportunities for scholars to collaborate in the study of public law in relevant to constitutional law and comparative constitutional law. She holds Bachelor Law degree (Sarjana Hukum) from Airlangga University, Indonesia, Master of Laws (LL.M) from RuG Groningen University, the Netherlands, and PhD from Maastricht University, the Netherlands. Dr. Rosa Ristawati focuses her research on constitutional law from comparative, doctrinal, historical and theoretical perspectives.


Other Recent Articles in the TRAFO Series “Rethinking Democracy through Constitutional Adjudication”

Donatas Murauskas, Addressing value pluralism: the Lithuanian Constitutional Court enhances democracy by resolving the deadlock of civil unions, 18.11.2025.

Mohamed ‘Arafa, Islamocracy and Judicial Review in Egypt, 21.10.2025.

Arthur Guerra Filho, How Should Elected Politicians Behave? Constitutional Insights from the U.S. and Brazilian Supreme Courts, 23.09.2025.


Citation: Rosa Ristawati, The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia: Experimenting with a Developmental Conception of Democracy, in: TRAFO – Blog for Transregional Research, 16.12.2025, https://trafo.hypotheses.org/62557


OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Forum Transregionale Studien (December 16, 2025). The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia: Experimenting with a Developmental Conception of Democracy. TRAFO – Blog for Transregional Research. Retrieved January 22, 2026 from https://doi.org/10.58079/15cti


You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.