Rumah Pemilu Indonesia Election Portal
UGM Center for Digital Society (CfDS) researcher Allysa Putri Rendry revealed that after the Supreme Court (MA) decision Number 23 P/HUM/2024, many people opposed and even rejected the implementation of the decision. However, quite a few people view this as legitimate because it is based on the law and the constitution.
“There is polarization of opinion in society and the media. Some felt the ruling was odd and strongly opposed it due to concerns about dynastic politics. “On the other hand, there are people who really trust government institutions and understand the legal process and the constitution,” said Allysa in an online discussion entitled “Dynastic Politics and Supreme Court Decisions: What is the Public and Media Response?” (14/6).
Allysa said her dissatisfaction with MA decision 23/2024 and MK decision 90/2023 was due to the political nuances in those decisions. Many people feel that these two institutions are not independent and are influenced by certain parties.
“Public dissatisfaction can stem from bad experiences with previous legal systems, which were considered socially and economically unfair. “These factors make it difficult for society to accept these decisions,” he explained.
Meanwhile, according to Allysa, the community supports it and doesn’t have a problem because it is based on the law and the constitution. They see these decisions as giving the younger generation the opportunity to actively participate in politics, eliminating the limitations of age requirements.
“People who have not felt the negative impact of dynastic politics may find it harmless.” However, for those who have experienced it, the impact is very large, power circulates only in limited circles, and political access becomes very difficult,” explained Allysa.
According to Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem) researcher Kahfi Adlan Hafidz, maintaining democracy not only requires compliance with the law but also ethical boundaries. He said that history shows that democratic countries can collapse because leaders only rely on legal provisions without paying attention to ethical boundaries, such as Germany in the Hitler era and Israel today.
“This also happened to election organizers, where many KPU members received ethical sanctions from the DKPP. “This ethical issue can undermine democracy and human rights,” said Kahfi.
Although the presidential family or political family is not legally prohibited from running in elections, they must consider potential conflicts of interest and nepotism. The public must consider the impact of dynastic politics in a democratic country.
“A democratic country will be successful if it is run by adhering to ethical boundaries and avoiding conflicts of interest,” he said. []
