Comparison of Dispute Resolution in General Elections in Indonesia and Hungary
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22219/ilrej.v4i2.35437Keywords:
Comparasion, Dispute Resolution, General Election, Indonesia-HungarAbstract
The purpose of this article is to provide an in-depth analysis of the electoral dispute resolution mechanisms in Indonesia and Hungary. Indonesia, the world's largest democracy, holds general elections every five years based on Law Number 7 of 2017, aiming to influence the public through non-coercive means such as rhetoric and public relations, despite the controversial use of agitation and propaganda. Various obstacles and disputes often arise, requiring effective resolution mechanisms involving multiple institutions like the Election Supervisory Board, the Supreme Court, the Honorary Council of Election Organizers, and the Constitutional Court. Hungary, a European Union member with a parliamentary system, employs a mixed electoral system combining proportional representation and single-member districts, with the National Election Committee managing complaints and objections, supported by the Election Court and the Constitutional Court. Using a normative approach with statutory, historical, and comparative legal methods, this study reveals that Indonesia's multi-tiered dispute resolution mechanism ensures comprehensive coverage but faces challenges in legal certainty and efficiency, while Hungary's centralized system offers a more efficient process but faces issues of transparency and accountability. The findings suggest that Indonesia could benefit from streamlining its approach, while Hungary might focus on enhancing the transparency of its system, providing valuable insights for refining electoral dispute resolution processes in both countries to ensure democratic integrity.
Abstrak
Penulisan artikel ini bertujuan untuk memberikan analisis mendalam tentang mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa pemilu di Indonesia dan Hongaria. Indonesia, demokrasi terbesar di dunia, mengadakan pemilihan umum setiap lima tahun sekali berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2017, yang bertujuan untuk mempengaruhi publik melalui cara-cara non-koersif seperti retorika dan hubungan masyarakat, meskipun penggunaan agitasi dan propaganda kontroversial. Berbagai hambatan dan sengketa sering muncul, yang memerlukan mekanisme penyelesaian yang efektif yang melibatkan berbagai institusi seperti Badan Pengawas Pemilu, Mahkamah Agung, Dewan Kehormatan Penyelenggara Pemilu, dan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Hongaria, anggota Uni Eropa dengan sistem parlementer, menggunakan sistem pemilu campuran yang menggabungkan perwakilan proporsional dan distrik anggota tunggal, dengan Komite Pemilihan Nasional mengelola keluhan dan keberatan, didukung oleh Pengadilan Pemilihan dan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Menggunakan pendekatan normatif dengan metode hukum statutori, historis, dan komparatif, studi ini mengungkapkan bahwa mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa bertingkat di Indonesia memastikan cakupan yang komprehensif tetapi menghadapi tantangan dalam kepastian hukum dan efisiensi, sementara sistem terpusat Hongaria menawarkan proses yang lebih efisien tetapi menghadapi masalah transparansi dan akuntabilitas. Temuan ini menunjukkan bahwa Indonesia dapat mengambil manfaat dari penyederhanaan pendekatannya, sementara Hongaria mungkin perlu fokus pada peningkatan transparansi sistemnya, memberikan wawasan berharga untuk menyempurnakan proses penyelesaian sengketa pemilu di kedua negara guna memastikan integritas demokratis.
Downloads
References
Abizadeh, Arash. “Representation, bicameralism, political equality, and sortition: Reconstituting the second chamber as a randomly selected assembly.” Perspectives on Politics 19, no. 3 (2021): 791–806.
Aermadepa, Aermadepa. “Penyelesaian Sengketa Proses Pemilu Oleh Bawaslu, Tantangan Dan Masa Depan.” Jurnal Justitia: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Humaniora 1, no. 2 (2019): 1–14.
Andrea, Schmidt. “Challenges of the Illiberal Democracy in Hungary. Some Aspects to the 2018 Elections.” Polish Political Science Review 6, no. 2 (1 Desember 2018): 70–90. https://doi.org/10.2478/ppsr-2018-0014.
Bancin, Rajis, dan Muhammad Syafii Sitorus. “Kunci Keberhasilan Menyongsong Pemilihan Serentak 2024 Menuju Indonesia Berkemajuan.” Jurnal Bakti Sosial 2, no. 1 (2023): 1–10.
Bisariyadi, Bisariyadi, Anna Triningsih, dan Meyrinda Rahmawaty. “Komparasi mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa pemilu di beberapa negara penganut paham demokrasi konstitusional.” Jurnal Konstitusi 9, no. 3 (2012): 531–62.
Ellis, Andrew. “Indonesia: Transition and Change but Electoral System Continuity.” Dalam The Handbook of Electoral System Choice, disunting oleh Josep M. Colomer, 497–511. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522749_29.
Enyedi, Zsolt. “The survival of the fittest: Party system concentration in Hungary.” Dalam Post-communist EU member states, 191–216. Routledge, 2017. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315246321-16/survival-fittest-party-system-concentration-hungary-zsolt-enyedi.
Jarabinskỳ, Mgr Ivan. “Electoral Integrity in Central Europe: an Insight Into the Electoral Rules and Reality,” 2020. https://is.muni.cz/th/smwpm/Jarabinsky_Dissertation.pdf.
Jastramskis, Mažvydas. “Effects of the mixed parallel electoral system in Lithuania: the worst of all worlds?” Parliamentary Affairs 72, no. 3 (2019): 561–87.
La Ode Hermanto, Wahyu Prianto. “Analisis Penyelesaian Sengketa Pemilihan Umum Oleh Badan Pengawas Pemilihan Umum Kota Kendari Pada Tahun 2019.” Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Pendidikan 2, no. 1 (2024): 20–30.
Lesen, Kausar Jumahir, Muhtadi Muhtadi, dan Martha Riananda. “The Code of Ethics and Disciplinary Management of Political Parties Member.” Constitutionale 3, no. 2 (2022): 161–76.
Mashdurohatun, Anis, Erman Suparman, dan I. Gusti Ayu Ketut Rachmi Handayani. “Authority of the Constitutional Court in the Dispute Resolution of Regional Head Elections.” Lex Publica 6, no. 1 (2019): 52–60.
Michaels, Ralf. “The functional method of comparative law.” The Oxford handbook of comparative law 2 (2006): 345–89.
Milenia, Luh Yossi Shuartini. “Peran Hukum Tata Negara (Studi Kasus Pemilihan Umum di Indonesia).” Jurnal Media Komunikasi Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan 3, no. 2 (2021): 65–76.
Mulyono, Galih Puji, dan Rizal Fatoni. “Demokrasi sebagai wujud nilai-nilai sila keempat Pancasila dalam pemilihan umum daerah di Indonesia.” Citizenship Jurnal Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan 7, no. 2 (2020): 97–107.
Mutawalli, Muhammad. “Legislative Elections: An Overview of Close Proportional System.” PETITA 8 (2023): 93.
Norris, Pippa. “The new research agenda studying electoral integrity.” Electoral Studies 32, no. 4 (2013): 563–75.
Pancaningtyas, Nugraheni. “The gender quota, the electoral system and women’s representation in Indonesia: case studies of two district parliaments,” 2015. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/156712734.pdf.
Prawira, Syailendra Anantya. “Election violation and election law enforcement in general election in Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum Volkgeist 4, no. 1 (2019): 25–34.
Rannie, Mahesa. “Legal regulations for the general election system in Indonesia from the 1955 election to the concurrent election of 2019.” Nurani: Jurnal Kajian Syari’ah dan Masyarakat 20, no. 2 (2020): 247–64.
Rikardo, Ofis. “Penerapan Kedaulatan Rakyat Di Dalam Pemilihan Umum Di Indonesia Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.” Jurnal Hukum Sasana 6, no. 1 (2020): 51–71.
Ririhena, Micael. “Kewenangan Bawaslu Dalam Penyelesaian Pelanggaran Administrasi Pemilu.” Bacarita Law Journal 4, no. 2 (2024): 112–21.
Sensu, La, Guasman Tatawu, Muhammad Sabarudin Sinapoy, Oheo Kaimuddin Haris, Sahrina Safiuddin, dan M. Gafur. “Analisis Kewenangan Adjudikasi Bawaslu dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Proses Pemilu.” Halu Oleo Legal Research 4, no. 2 (2022): 308–21.
Siboy, Ahmad. “Constitutionality of constitutional settlement of disputes for the election of local heads.” Jurnal Cakrawala Hukum 13, no. 2 (2022): 117–27.
Sólyom, László, dan Georg Brunner. Constitutional judiciary in a new democracy: the Hungarian Constitutional Court. University of Michigan Press, 2000.
Steuer, Max. “Authoritarian populism, conceptions of democracy, and the Hungarian Constitutional Court: the case of political participation.” Dalam Judicial Activism in an Age of Populism, 69–91. Routledge, 2023. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003371656-5/authoritarian-populism-conceptions-democracy-hungarian-constitutional-court-case-political-participation-max-steuer.
Sunstein, Cass R. Legal reasoning and political conflict. Oxford University Press, 2018.
Supriyadi, Dedi, Ende Hasbi Nassaruddin, dan Beni Ahmad Saebani. “Position and Legal Certainty in the Decision of the Honorary Board of Election Organizers (After the Constitutional Court Decision Number 32/PUU-XIX/2021).” West Science Social and Humanities Studies 1, no. 06 (2023): 315–24.
Suwarso, Reni. “Indonesian democracy: the impact of electoral systems on political parties, 1999–2009.” PhD Thesis, Victoria University, 2016. https://vuir.vu.edu.au/31051/3/SUWARSO%20Reni-thesis_nosignature.pdf.
Tan, David. “Metode Penelitian Hukum: Mengupas Dan Mengulas Metodologi Dalam Menyelenggarakan Penelitian Hukum.” Nusantara: Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial 8, no. 8 (2021): 2463–78.
Várnagy, Réka, dan Gabriella Ilonszki. “The conflict of partisan interests and normative expectations in electoral system change. Hungary in 2014.” Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 8, no. 1 (2017): 3–24.
Wishnu, Dewanto. “Tinjauan Hukum Implementasi Sistem Demokrasi Pancasila Melalui Pemilihan Umum Langsung Di Indonesia.” PhD Thesis, Universitas Tama Jagakarsa, 2017. http://digilib.iblam.ac.id/id/eprint/153/1/Tesis%20-%20Dr.%20Wishnu%20Dewanto.pdf.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Amiludin Amiludin, Darwin Saputra, Undang Prasetya Umara; Hidayatulloh Hidayatulloh
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
