Potential Money Politics Is Considered Larger To OCCUR In Political Parties When Elections Implement Closed Proportional

JAKARTA - Risky Dewi Ambarwati, the legal representative of the party who sued Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning Elections so that elections are held with a closed proportional system of view that money politics has the potential to be greater in closed proportion.

"Money politics has the potential to be greater in political parties that determine the legislative seat," said Risky in the follow-up hearing of case Number 114/PUU-XX/2022 at the Constitutional Court (MK), Jakarta, Thursday, February 16, was confiscated by Antara.

This was conveyed by Risky Dewi regarding the arguments of the petitioner for case Number 114/PUU-XX/2022 which essentially said the open proportional election system caused a waste of the state budget as well as the potential for money politics to occur.

Responding to this, the legal counsel for related parties is of the view that the arguments expressed by the petitioners are tendentious and not objective.

In addition, the public or constituents also cannot assess the quality of the legislative candidates they will choose because they are determined by the supporting party.

Basically, Risky said, either in an open proportional electoral system or a closed proportional system, the political potential of money remains. It's just that in a closed proportional system it's likely to be bigger.

In the trial, he explained that Indonesia had long implemented an open proportional system so that the public was considered to have understood the mechanism when the democratic party took place.

"This mechanism will actually make it easier for the community when voting," he said.

Regarding budget waste as argued by the applicant, Risky said budget efficiency could be pursued through the use of digital-based technology, especially during election stages.

The application for case Number 114/PUU-XX/2022 related to the examination of the Election Law was submitted by Demas Brian Wicaksono, Yuwono Pintadi, Fahrurrozi, Ibnu Rachman Jaya, Riyanto, and Nono Marijono.

The petitioners argued that Article 168 Paragraph (2), Article 342 Paragraph (2), Article 353 Paragraph (1) letter b, Article 386 Paragraph (2) letter b, Article 420 letter c and letter d, Article 422, Article 424 Paragraph (2), Article 426 Paragraph (3) contradict the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

The petitioners argued that the enactment of the norms of the article, relating to the most vote-based proportional election system, had meant that the prospective pragmatic legislature had only a popularity without any ideological ties and political party structure.