Interpreting the Word "Or" in the Constitution

Verification of candidates' identities, official approval from party leaders, registration deadlines, and restrictions on proposing more than one pair are all organizational issues.

All these can be formulated equivalently. However, compelling one party to find a partner alters who can exercise the nomination right. These two types of regulation must not be treated as if they are the same.

Support

There is a deeper question: does a pre-election coalition truly guarantee that the president will receive stable support after being elected?

Party support can shift according to issues, positions, and the state of governance.

The agreement to propose candidates is an event before the public grants a mandate. Budget and legislative discussions take place subsequently within a politically changeable context.

Bruce Ackerman, in The New Separation of Powers (2000), argues that institutional efficiency is meaningless without substantive goals to be achieved. This methodological caution is helpful here.

Reducing the number of candidate pairs or consolidating supporting parties has not demonstrated that administration will perform better.

A coalition’s signature on the nomination form does not resolve how the president and the DPR negotiate for five years.

This is a conclusion about Indonesia, not Ackerman's statement concerning the requirement of two parties.

The constitution does not stipulate that the president be elected by a majority of parties in the DPR. The president and vice-president are directly elected by the people.

Article 6A even governs the possibility of a second round of voting if the requirements for victory in the first round are not met.

Thus, the presence of more than two candidate pairs has been accounted for in the constitutional design.

The costs and complexities of elections must be managed, but the existence of a second round should not be considered a defect justifying the restriction of rights to propose without grounds.

The president's need to work with the DPR remains real. The answers lie in governable programs, open legislative negotiations, and party responsibility for their positions in parliament. A coalition imposed at the time of registration does not automatically engender loyalty in the third year of administration.

Shifting the political cooperation issue to the nomination door only makes that door narrower.

In its considerations, the Court stated that the right of parties to propose candidates involves an obligation to be executed. As a guide for lawmakers, the Court mentioned the sanction of prohibiting electoral participation in subsequent elections for parties that do not propose candidate pairs.

The details of its application still require careful legislative formulation. A party that joins to propose one pair has exercised its right; it is not the same as a party that does not participate at all in the proposals.

The process of formulating new rules cannot be monopolized by the parties currently sitting in the DPR.

They have a direct interest in the shape of future competition. Therefore, the voices of parties without seats, election organizers, experts, and voters need to meaningfully enter the discussions.

Transparency allows the public to assess whether a requirement is created to uphold the quality of elections or to maintain the advantages of existing participants.

Lawmakers should present simulations: how many candidate pairs might emerge, what the chances are for new parties, and whether voters have real alternatives.

Technical difficulties should not immediately be raised as constitutional arguments; constitutional rights also demand orderly election processes.

Ultimately, the word “or” in Article 6A paragraph (2) reminds us of a simple limit.

One party may go alone. Several parties may go together.

The law can regulate how both paths are taken, but it should not close one while pretending that both are still available. In front of the constitution, such small clarity determines whether the Court's decision is carried out according to its intention, or merely followed in name.