"In the Time Machine by H.G. Wells, time travel allows the protagonist to witness the long-term consequences of societal changes. Similarly, the concept of time travelling can be seen as a metaphor for understanding the historical and future implications of political decisions, such as the presidential threshold, which shapes the course of political events over time," said the time traveller. "Just as the time traveller has the power to navigate through time, political parties and coalitions wield influence through the presidential threshold. The ability to meet this threshold can determine their role in shaping the country's future leadership. Both time travel stories and political scenarios involve speculation about different possible futures. While "The Time Machine" presents a fictional vision of the future, discussions about the presidential threshold involve predicting the outcomes of political strategies and their impact on society.
The Presidential Threshold is a term used primarily in political systems with proportional representation to describe the minimum level of support a political party or coalition must achieve to nominate a candidate for the presidency. It is often expressed as a percentage of the vote in parliamentary or legislative elections and is used to limit the number of parties that can nominate a presidential candidate, reducing political fragmentation and ensuring that only parties with significant electoral support participate. The primary aim of the presidential threshold is to ensure that presidential candidates have substantial parliamentary backing, promoting political stability and encouraging the formation of larger coalitions among parties. This system was designed to prevent fragmented political representation and ensure that elected presidents have significant legislative support. For example in Indonesia, the Presidential Threshold requires a party or coalition to have at least 20% of the seats in the House of Representatives (DPR) or 25% of the national vote in the previous legislative elections to nominate a presidential candidate. This threshold was established under Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections. However, the threshold has faced criticism for potentially limiting political participation, particularly for smaller parties, which could reduce voter choice in presidential elections. Other countries may apply different rules or have no such threshold.
The presidential and parliamentary thresholds are both electoral mechanisms used to regulate political participation in elections, but they serve different purposes and apply to different contexts. The parliamentary threshold refers to the minimum percentage of votes a political party must receive in legislative elections to gain representation in the parliament. This threshold is typically set lower than the presidential threshold and varies by country. The parliamentary threshold is designed to prevent fragmentation in the legislature by ensuring that only parties with a significant level of public support can enter parliament. This encourages larger parties to form coalitions, which can lead to more stable governance.
In 'Electoral Systems and Democracy' (2006, Johns Hopkins University Press) edited by Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner, the impacts of thresholds in electoral systems are discussed in the context of their effects on governance, representation, and democracy. Lower thresholds tend to lead to greater political fragmentation because they allow smaller parties to gain representation in the legislature. This can make coalition-building more complex and result in less stable governments. Higher thresholds can reduce the number of parties in the legislature, fostering more stable governance by encouraging larger, more cohesive political parties or coalitions. However, excessively high thresholds may exclude smaller but significant political groups, potentially alienating segments of the electorate.
Lower thresholds are generally more inclusive, ensuring that smaller parties and minority interests are represented in the legislature. This inclusivity can enhance the legitimacy of the political system by reflecting a broader range of public opinion. Higher thresholds can distort proportionality by disproportionately favouring larger parties and limiting the representation of smaller parties. This can marginalize minority voices and lead to dissatisfaction among voters who support excluded groups.
Lower thresholds encourage political competition and pluralism by providing smaller parties a realistic chance to participate meaningfully in the democratic process. This can enhance democratic engagement and innovation. If the threshold is too low, it may lead to excessive fragmentation, complicating the legislative process and potentially encouraging extreme or fringe parties to gain representation. This could polarize the political landscape and hinder democratic decision-making. Higher thresholds may simplify the party system, making it easier for voters to assign accountability to governing parties. However, this can come at the expense of diversity and inclusiveness in the political system.
There is no universal standard percentage for the Presidential Threshold, as it varies widely depending on the country and its electoral laws. Different nations adopt thresholds that reflect their political, social, and historical contexts. However, common thresholds range between 10% and 25% of seats in parliament or votes in previous elections. Thresholds represent a trade-off between ensuring a wide array of voices in the legislature and maintaining a system that is efficient and capable of producing stable governments. The ideal threshold depends on a country’s political, social, and cultural context. Diamond and Plattner highlight that electoral thresholds play a critical role in shaping democratic outcomes. While higher thresholds may contribute to stability and governability, they can also suppress diversity and representation. Conversely, lower thresholds promote inclusivity but may result in fragmented and unstable governance. Policymakers must carefully calibrate thresholds to balance these competing priorities based on their unique democratic and institutional contexts.
So, higher thresholds reduce the number of candidates, promoting stability but potentially excluding smaller parties. Lower thresholds encourage inclusivity but can lead to political fragmentation. Proportional representation systems often adopt thresholds to streamline presidential elections. Thresholds are designed to ensure that only candidates with significant political support can contest the presidency. Majoritarian systems may avoid thresholds entirely.
In Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do (2001, Oxford University Press), Cass R. Sunstein explores various constitutional mechanisms and their role in fostering democratic stability and consolidation. Thresholds play a pivotal role in this process because they set standards or minimum criteria that can shape political behaviour, decision-making, and institutional functionality.
Thresholds can encourage deliberation by requiring a high level of consensus before significant decisions or changes are made. For example, constitutional thresholds for amending the constitution (e.g., a supermajority requirement) ensure that only widely agreed-upon changes are implemented, promoting stability and reducing the risk of capricious or divisive decisions.
By setting thresholds for actions like impeachment, legislative approval, or policy changes, constitutions can protect minority rights and prevent the majority from imposing its will unchecked. This ensures that democratic principles, such as inclusivity and pluralism, are preserved.
Thresholds often require political actors to collaborate across party lines or ideological divides. For instance, a high electoral threshold to enter parliament may encourage smaller parties to form coalitions, thereby fostering a more inclusive and cooperative political environment. High thresholds for critical decisions, such as referendums or electoral results, help ensure that outcomes reflect broad-based support. This enhances the perceived legitimacy of institutions and decisions, which is crucial for democratic consolidation.
Sunstein notes the importance of thresholds in balancing constitutional flexibility with stability. While low thresholds might make constitutions too malleable, high thresholds can render them overly rigid. The appropriate design of thresholds ensures that constitutions are adaptable to societal changes while remaining robust against short-term pressures. Thresholds can act as a cooling mechanism by delaying or complicating hasty decisions during times of heightened political polarization. This allows for a period of reflection and negotiation, reducing the likelihood of conflict and fostering democratic resilience.
In electoral systems, thresholds for representation can discourage frivolous candidacies or splintered political movements that may destabilize the system. Parties or individuals are incentivized to demonstrate broad appeal and accountability to voters. Sunstein emphasizes that the effectiveness of thresholds in supporting democratic consolidation depends on their careful calibration to the political, cultural, and historical context of a society. Overly high thresholds can exclude voices and stifle necessary reforms, while overly low thresholds can undermine stability. Thus, designing appropriate thresholds is a central aspect of constitutional engineering in a democracy.
In Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy (2007, Cambridge University Press), edited by José Antonio Cheibub and Fernando Limongi, the authors explore various institutional dynamics of presidential and parliamentary democracies, including how electoral thresholds affect these systems. Thresholds refer to the minimum percentage of votes a party must receive to gain representation in a legislature. These thresholds can influence the number and size of political parties, electoral competition, and government stability. Higher thresholds in parliamentary systems tend to limit the number of small parties that enter the legislature. This can make coalition formation easier by reducing fragmentation and increasing the chances of forming stable governments. Higher thresholds can push parliamentary systems toward majoritarian outcomes, potentially leading to single-party governments, especially when combined with first-past-the-post systems.
In presidential systems, thresholds can similarly reduce legislative fragmentation, leading to more cohesive legislatures. This can enhance the president’s ability to govern effectively by facilitating smoother negotiations between the executive and legislative branches.
A lower number of parties due to higher thresholds can simplify legislative dynamics but might also weaken the representation of minority interests, reducing the diversity of checks on presidential power.
Thresholds play a significant role in shaping the quality of democracy in Presidential and Parliamentary systems. While higher thresholds might promote government stability in both systems, they risk excluding smaller parties and minority voices, potentially leading to dissatisfaction or unrest. A well-calibrated threshold can balance the need for stability with the representation of diverse viewpoints, which is critical for the legitimacy of democratic regimes.
Setting the Presidential Threshold to 0%—meaning no minimum requirement for a political party or coalition to nominate a presidential candidate—has both advantages and disadvantages. The 0% Presidential Threshold allows all political parties, regardless of size, to nominate candidates, promoting diversity and inclusivity in the political process. Smaller parties and independent candidates have an opportunity to compete, potentially bringing fresh ideas. With no threshold, voters are presented with a broader range of candidates, increasing democratic participation and satisfaction. The 0% Presidential Threshold prevents dominance by large parties or coalitions, reducing political centralization and favouritism. Small or emerging parties can test their political platforms in presidential elections, leading to more dynamic and competitive politics.
Countries like France and Kenya effectively have no formal threshold for nominating presidential candidates, but they often implement other mechanisms, such as requiring endorsements or deposits, to prevent excessive fragmentation. The absence of a threshold can lead to a proliferation of fringe or unserious candidates, complicating governance if one of them wins or influences the election disproportionately. A large number of candidates can split the vote, making it difficult for any one candidate to achieve a majority, potentially requiring costly and time-consuming run-off elections.
Without a threshold, the resulting political landscape might be too fragmented for effective coalition-building, hindering executive-legislative collaboration. A long list of candidates may overwhelm voters, reducing the quality of decision-making in elections. Campaign resources (media attention, funding, etc.) may be spread too thin across many candidates, reducing the focus on substantive issues.
In Indonesia, the elimination of the presidential threshold is expected to have several impacts on the welfare of the people, both positive and negative. With the removal of the threshold, smaller and newer political parties can nominate their own presidential candidates. This diversification can lead to a broader representation of interests and voices in government, potentially addressing issues that are more relevant to various segments of society, thereby enhancing overall welfare.
The availability of more candidates allows voters to choose from a wider array of political platforms and policies. This choice can empower citizens and encourage greater civic engagement, as they feel their preferences are better represented in elections. A more diverse candidate pool may lead to innovative policy proposals that address pressing social issues, such as poverty alleviation, education, and healthcare. Candidates from smaller parties may focus on specific welfare-enhancing policies that larger parties might overlook. By restoring the ability of all parties to participate in presidential nominations, the ruling enhances democratic practices in Indonesia. A stronger democracy can lead to better governance, accountability, and responsiveness to citizens' needs, ultimately improving public welfare.
However, the removal of the threshold could lead to higher campaign costs due to a larger number of candidates competing for votes. This financial burden may divert resources from essential public services and welfare programs, impacting overall societal well-being. More candidates might lead to fragmentation within the electorate, making it challenging for any single candidate to achieve a majority. This situation could result in unstable governments that struggle to implement effective policies, which may adversely affect public welfare initiatives.
The potential for increased competition among numerous candidates could escalate political tensions and conflicts during elections. Such instability can disrupt daily life and hinder economic activities, negatively affecting the welfare of citizens. If numerous parties gain representation without clear majorities, it may complicate legislative processes and hinder effective governance. This inefficiency could delay or obstruct important welfare-related legislation and programs.
In summary, while the abolition of the presidential threshold presents opportunities for enhanced political representation and voter engagement that could improve public welfare, it also carries risks related to increased costs, political fragmentation, and potential instability that could undermine these benefits. The actual impact will depend on how political parties adapt to this new landscape and how effectively they can address the needs of their constituents.
As of January 2, 2025, the Constitutional Court of Indonesia (Mahkamah Konstitusi, MK) has officially abolished this presidential threshold. This decision allows all political parties to propose presidential candidates without meeting the previous requirements, significantly altering the political landscape ahead of upcoming elections. The removal of this threshold is expected to lead to a more competitive electoral environment, enabling a wider array of candidates to participate in presidential races.
And so, the connection between a time machine and the presidential threshold lies in their shared themes of change and consequence. The abolition of the presidential threshold represents a pivotal moment in Indonesia's political evolution, akin to a journey through time that seeks to rectify past limitations while navigating the uncertainties of future governance. As Indonesia moves forward, the outcomes of this decision will unfold like a narrative shaped by both historical context and contemporary aspirations for democracy."
.jpg)
.jpg)
