When Courts Redesign Democracy: The Politics of Constitutional Adjudication in Indonesia’s Regional Election System
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22225/politicos.6.1.2026.19-31Keywords:
Judicialization of Politics; Constitutional Adjudication; Party System Adaptation; Redesign DemocracyAbstract
In many developing democracies, constitutional courts (Mahkamah Konstitusi: MK) have evolved beyond their traditional role as guardians of legality to become active agents in shaping the design of democratic institutions. Indonesia's Constitutional Court is increasingly exercising this transformative capacity, particularly through its interventions in the regional election system. In Indonesia, the MK is increasingly exercising this transformative capacity, particularly through its intervention in the regional election system. This article investigates how the 2024 MK ruling (Decision No. 60/PUU-XXII/2024), which removed the electoral threshold for regional head candidacy, has recalibrated the interaction between political parties and state institutions in Indonesian democracy. Using a framework of political jurisprudence combined with concepts from institutional change theory, this study places the MK's decision within a broader debate on judicial activism, party system adaptation, and constitutional politics in electoral design. This analysis suggests that the MK’s intervention not only liberalized the selection of local candidates but also reshaped coalition incentives, as interpreted through an analysis of judicial reasoning and post-decision party strategies. By conceptualizing constitutional adjudication as a mode of redesigning democracy, this study advances a nuanced understanding of how judicial institutions in democracies act as de facto architects of political reform. It contributes theoretically to comparative discussions on judicial power and institutional evolution, and empirically to studies on the ongoing consolidation of democracy in Indonesia.
References
Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (2006). Interpretive approaches to British government and politics. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 8(2), 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2006.00235.x
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Butt, S. (2015). The Constitutional Court and democracy in Indonesia. Brill Nijhoff.
Butt, S. (2016). Judicial review and democracy in Indonesia: The Constitutional Court and legal change. Routledge.
Butt, S., & Lindsey, T. (2018). The Constitution of Indonesia: A contextual analysis. Hart Publishing.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Daly, T. G. (2019). The alchemists: Questioning our faith in courts as democracy builders. Cambridge University Press.
Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (4th ed.). Routledge.
Dressel, B. (2012). The judicialization of politics in Asia. Routledge.
Dressel, B. (2012). Judicialization of politics or politicization of the judiciary? The Indonesian Constitutional Court after a decade. The Pacific Review, 25(5), 701–721.
Fisher, L. (2006). Constitutional dialogues: Interpretation as political process. Princeton University Press.
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
Gillman, H. (2002). How political parties can use the courts to advance their agendas. American Political Science Review, 96(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402000306
Ginsburg, T. (2003). Judicial review in new democracies: Constitutional courts in Asian cases. Cambridge University Press.
Ginsburg, T., & Moustafa, T. (Eds.). (2008). Rule by law: The politics of courts in authoritarian regimes. Cambridge University Press.
Ginsburg, T., & Versteeg, M. (2014). Why do countries adopt constitutional review? Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 30(3), 587–622. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewt010
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Polity Press.
Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x
Helmke, G., & Ríos-Figueroa, J. (Eds.). (2011). Courts in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
Hirschl, R. (2004). Towards juristocracy: The origins and consequences of the new constitutionalism. Harvard University Press.
Hirschl, R. (2008). The judicialization of politics. In K. E. Whittington, R. D. Kelemen, & G. A. Caldeira (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of law and politics (pp. 119–141). Oxford University Press.
Kompas. (2024, August 21). MK ubah ambang batas pencalonan pilkada demi keadilan dan akses politik. Kompas. https://www.kompas.id
Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.
Mahfudhi, M. A. (2024). Golkar powerbrokers jostle for control of Indonesia’s second largest party. Indonesia at Melbourne. https://indonesiaatmelbourne.unimelb.edu.au/golkar-powerbrokers-jostle-for-control-of-indonesias-second-largest-party/
Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge University Press.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. Free Press.
Mietzner, M. (2010). Political conflict resolution and democratic consolidation in Indonesia. Journal of East Asian Studies, 10(3), 397–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1598240800003669
Mietzner, M. (2021). Democratic regression in Indonesia: Causes, symptoms, and prognosis. Asian Studies Review, 45(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2020.1840006
O’Donnell, G. (1994). Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy, 5(1), 55–69.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Pompe, S. (2005). The Indonesian Supreme Court: A study of institutional collapse. Cornell University Press.
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.
Scheppele, K. L. (2018). Autocratic legalism. University of Chicago Law Review, 85(2), 545–583.
Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. Routledge.
Stone Sweet, A. (2000). Governing with judges: Constitutional politics in Europe. Oxford University Press.
Syafa’atun Ni’mah, I., & Mahfudhi, M. A. (2025). Indonesia’s religious groups and their mining concessions. Stratsea. https://stratsea.com/indonesias-religious-groups-and-their-mining-concessions/
Tempo. (2024, September 1). Partai tunggal mulai ramaikan pendaftaran calon kepala daerah. Tempo. https://www.tempo.co
Tsauro, M. A., & Mahfudhi, M. A. (2024). One-horse races in regional elections: Another grim symptom of Indonesia’s ailing democracy. Indonesia at Melbourne. https://indonesiaatmelbourne.unimelb.edu.au/one-horse-races-in-regional-elections-another-grim-symptom-of-indonesias-ailing-democracy/
Tushnet, M. (2008). Weak courts, strong rights: Judicial review and social welfare rights in comparative constitutional law. Princeton University Press.
Vanberg, G. (2005). The politics of constitutional review in Germany. Cambridge University Press.
Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2015). Interpretive research design: Rethinking epistemology in the human sciences. Routledge.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sahrin Hamid
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
