THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTION SYSTEM BETWEEN INDONESIA

AND MALAYSIA

Sunarso, Suyato, Puji Wulandari K, Awang N, and Syifa A

ABSTRACT

This study aims to describe the comparison of elections in Indonesia and Malaysia
from the following aspects : (1) the legal basis, (2) the organizing institution, (3) a portrait of
its implementation, (4) the role of political parties and, (5) the participation of citizens.
This type of research is literature research, using a qualitative approach. Data
collection used documentation techniques. The data analysis technique used a qualitative
descriptive analysis. The data obtained are collected, grouped, categorized, then interpreted to
obtain conclusions. Interpreting data is based on concepts, theories, and critical analysis. The
technique of checking the validity of the data used a cross-check .
Research Results: (1) The legal basis for elections in Indonesia is experiencing very
fast dynamics compared to Malaysia. Indonesia has conducted 12 elections. Law Number 7
of 1953 concerning the Election of Constituent Members and Members of the People's
Representative Council, is the first Election Law which was held in 1955. Law Number 15 of
1969 concerning the General Election of Members of the Deliberative Council / People's
Representative Council, Elections 1971. Law No. 15 of 1969 amended by Law No. 5 of 1975,
for the election of 1977. Act No. 2 of 1980 on Amendment a bag of Law No. 15 of 1969 , for
the election of 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997. Law No. 12 of 2003 concerning Elections, for the
2004 Elections. Law no. 10 of 2008. Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning Elections. The legal basis
for the Malaysian Election also experienced dynamics: (a) the Malaysia Act of Choice Raya
1958; (b) Malaysian Law of Option Raya Deed of Error 1954 (c) PU (A) 293/2002 The
Regulation of Raya Options (Voter Registration) was last amended by PU (A) 106/2012; (d)
PU (A) 185/2003 Election Regulations (Election by Post) 2003; (e) PU (A) 386/1981
Regulation of the Great Choice (Implementation of Great Choice) 1981; (f) Last amended by
PU (A) 134/2013. (2) The election organizer in Indonesia since the reform era was an
independent institution called the General Election Commission (KPU), while during the
New Order era it was called the General Election Institution (LPU) which was an extension
of the ruling government. The election organizer in Malaysia is Suruhanjaya Options Raya
(SPR), which is an extension of the government. (3) The Election System in Malaysia is
simpler, simpler and more efficient. Even in Malaysia, the results of the votes in the General
Election no longer need to be submitted to the Constitutional Court (MK) even though they
are only a few points away. Malaysia uses the District Election System, which is a system
based on the location of the electoral district, not the population, so that when a candidate in
the electoral district wins, he / she immediately becomes a member of the DPR. The electoral
system in Indonesia is more complex. Indonesia needs to consider the implementation of
elections that are not too complicated. The Election System in Indonesia uses a Proportional
Election System. (4) Malaysia is a country that is a constitutional monarchy and
parliamentary democracies, and the prime minister and the prime minister elected by the
people through P emilu which takes place every five years. Both Indonesia and Malaysia
adhere to a multi-party system. However, in the reform era, its party life was more
democratic than Malaysia. The current system in Malaysia is similar to that of Indonesia in
the New Order era. (5 ) The voter turnout rate in Malaysia is very high, reaching 85 percent,
far above the voter turnout in Indonesia which is only 74 percent. From a bureaucratic
perspective, the district election system is simpler. In general, in terms of democracy, the
elections in Malaysia are worse than in Indonesia. Election administrators in Malaysia tend to
side with government parties. In 2018, Suruhanjaya Options Raya Malaysia (SPR) prohibited
diasporas in other countries from choosing to use posts because they were considered the
diaspora to support opposition parties. Then in terms of regeneration, a character can be in
power for a long period of time and can even last a lifetime
Keywords: election system, Indonesia, Malaysia, comparative study, general election
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

A. Background

Indonesia and Malaysia are two allied countries that have almost the

same cultural and ethnic backgrounds. The two allied nations became

independent and established their respective countries after the Second World

War due to different colonial histories. Indonesia was colonized by the Dutch,

while Malaysia was colonized by the British. Indonesia chose the form of a

republic which put sovereignty in the hands of the people. Malaysia chooses

the form of a constitutional monarchy, which also places sovereignty in the

hands of the people. The two countries choose the path of democracy.

Nowadays democracy is increasingly blossoming in coloring the life and

civilization of mankind. Among the existing systems, democracy is the best

system for the life of the nation and state. An effective and highly legitimate

government system can only grow and develop in a democracy.

General elections (Elections) are an important institution in any

democratic country, especially for a country in the form of a republic such as

Indonesia, or a constitutional monarchy such as Malaysia. These institutions

function to fulfill three basic principles of democracy, namely the sovereignty

of the people, legitimacy of government, and regular changes in government.

These three principles aim to guarantee and implement the ideals of

independence, prevent certain interests from taking root in government, or the

replacement of people's sovereignty to become the sovereignty of the ruler. If

most or all of the existing socio-political groups in society are represented in

representative institutions both at the central and regional levels, the principle

of people's sovereignty will undoubtedly be fulfilled. Furthermore, if the

election mechanism for people's representatives in representative institutions

runs as it should, namely taking place directly, publicly, freely, secretly,

honestly and fairly, then the resulting government also has strong legitimacy.

Election is a mechanism for selecting people who will later fill certain

political positions, starting from the positions of president, vice president, to

people's representatives. Those who are elected will later occupy government

positions, be it the central, provincial, regency / city governments, to the

villages.

Elections have become an inseparable part for countries that adhere to

a democratic system that provides benefits for democratic life, namely the

power is in the hands of the people. In a country that adheres to a democratic

system, elections are used as an important momentum for the formation and

administration of a country's government. It can be said that apart from being

a mechanism for electing people's representatives, the General Election is also

a process of evaluating and reforming social contracts.

Election is a mechanism that provides a discussion space for voters

(constituents) with election participants, namely candidates for people's

representatives. These discussions can be carried out individually or through

an intermediary who has the function of a political party in which generally

discusses how the administration of government in a country should be carried

 out. The people are expected to give approval regarding who is the holder of

government power and how that power is exercised.

Elections are a concrete manifestation of the implementation of

democracy, even though democracy is not the same as elections. However,

elections are one aspect of democracy. Therefore, it is common in countries

that call themselves democracy countries, of course, they have to make the

implementation of periodic elections a tradition to elect public officials both in

the legislature and the executive. This study intends to compare elections in

Indonesia and Malaysia.

B. Research Problems

Based on the background of the problems above, the following research

problems can be formulated.

1. What is the legal basis for elections in the two countries?

2. Who are the organizers of the elections in the two countries?

3. What is the portrait of the Election in the two countries?

4. What is the role of political parties in the elections in the two

countries?

5. How is the participation of citizens in the elections in the two

countries?

C. Research Objectives

This research was conducted with the following objectives.

1. Identify the legal basis for elections in both countries.

2. Identifying election administrators in both countries.

3. Analyze the implementation of the General Election in the two

countries.

4. Describe the role of political parties in elections in two countries.

5. Describe the participation of citizens in elections in the two

countries
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

A. General Review on Election

In a democratic country, the highest power is in the hands of the people. Because the

people are the owners of sovereignty, the people must be involved in managing the country.

Election is a concrete form of people's participation in managing the country. Because

through elections the people vote to elect people who are trusted to hold state power. Through

the General Election, the people elect their representatives who sit in the DPR, DPD and

DPRD. Through elections, the people also elect the president and vice president. Through

Pilkada the people elect the governor and deputy governor. Through the Pilkada, the people

also elect the regent and deputy regent or mayor and their deputy. Elections and Presidential

Elections are held on the basis of direct, general, free, confidential, honest and fair principles.

The purpose of this principle is as follows: (1) Direct means that every voter directly casts his

vote without intermediaries; (2) General means that the election is valid for all Indonesian

citizens who have met the requirements without discriminating their origins; (3) Free means

that every voter can exercise his right according to his conscience without any pressure and

coercion from any party; (4) Confidential means that the choice of each voter is guaranteed

not to be known by other parties, by any means; (5) Honest means that all parties involved in

the implementation of the election must behave and act honestly in accordance with the

prevailing laws and regulations; (6) Fair means that every voter and political party

participating in the election receives fair treatment, free from fraud by any party.

Elections have a close relationship with democracy and rule of law countries. The

essence of democracy is the involvement of the people in the formation and administration of
government through participation, representation and supervision. Because that is one of the

characteristics of democracy put forward by N.D. Arora and S.S. Awasthy is that the

government must be accountable to the governed, the government must be elected by the

governed or at least by representatives of the governed. A. Appadorai more firmly states that

the main means for the people to exercise their sovereignty is through votes in elections

(Janedjri M. Gaffar, 2014: 35). Election administration is also one of the principles of a

modern rule of law formulated by the International Commission of Jurists. In the context of a

rule of law, elections are also needed to ensure that laws are made democratically, namely by

institutions elected by the people through democratic means, namely elections (Janedjri M.

Gaffar, 2014: 36).

Moh. Mahfud MD emphasized the close relationship between elections with the

principles of democracy and the rule of law. Elections are closely related to democracy

because elections are one way of implementing democracy. This is because currently there is

no single country that can fully implement direct democracy. A modern democracy is a

country that operates a representative democracy. In a representative democracy, people's

rights are exercised by people's representatives, both those who sit in the legislative and

executive branches. Therefore, these people's representatives must be elected by the people

themselves through elections. Moreover, in a democratic country the role of representative

institutions which are also legislative institutions has grown increasingly important,

especially in the formation of laws and state policy decisions (Janedjri M. Gaffar, 2014: 36).

Rudolf Melinghoff puts the election in two positions, namely as a mechanism for the

transfer of power from the people to the state and as a legitimate provider for the government.

Elections can be conducted directly by the people who elect representatives who sit in the

legislative or executive institutions, or be carried out indirectly, namely through the electoral

college. Both of these models have their respective arguments. The indirect election argues
that the voters who will determine the legislative members are expected to have special

competences that are different from the citizens who elect them. They are expected to vote

more carefully and have a greater sense of responsibility when compared to voters from the

common people. The choice of this model is expected to improve the quality of the

legislature.

Elections can be carried out through several different systems. Broadly speaking, the

Election system is generally divided into two, namely the proportional system and the district

system. Proportional systems are often called multi member constituencies, while district

systems are called single member constituencies. In the district system, one small district

(electoral district) elects one representative on the basis of plurality. Whereas in a

proportional system, one large region elects several representatives whose numbers are

determined based on the balance of the population (Meriam Budihardjo, 1983: 244). Each

electoral system has its advantages and disadvantages. In practice, what often becomes a

problem is not the election system chosen, but more in the election implementation process

starting from determining candidates, committees, witnesses, campaigns, and recapitulation

of vote counts (Moh Mahfud MD, 2003: 227).

Based on the Universal Declaration on Democracy adopted by the Inter-Parliamentary

Union, elections are a key element in carrying out democracy. Based on this declaration,

elections held to carry out democracy must comply with several principles, namely free, fair,

periodic, public, equality and confidentiality. In addition, there must also be respect for the

right to vote and be elected, freedom of expression and assembly, access to information, and

freedom of association (Janedjri M. Gaffar, 2014: 42). The world parliamentary organization

(Inter-Parliamentary Union) has produced a document on the Universal Declaration on

Democracy which also mentions the principles of democratic elections which include: (1)

Free, fair and regular principles so that the will of the people can be expressed. (2) The
principle of carrying out an Election based on voting rights which is general, equal, and

secret in nature so that voters can elect their representatives under the same conditions, in an

open and transparent situation that encourages political competition.

In Indonesia, the principles of Election are constitutionally affirmed in the 1945

Constitution. In order for the General Election to become a vehicle for the embodiment of

sovereignty and the outcome is truly a form of the people's will, election principles have been

outlined, namely honest and fair, and voters can to exercise their rights in a direct, public,

free and confidential manner. These principles must of course be manifest in whatever system

is chosen. On the other hand, the election system and election administration must also

consider which system best reflects honesty and fairness. Honesty does not only mean that no

election provisions are violated or simply that no votes are manipulated. Honesty must also

be interpreted as the system that most allows the people to elect candidates according to

conscientious considerations based on the capacity and integrity of the candidates, not based

on money politics. Fair also does not only mean acting equally towards participants and

voters, but also concerns justice related to political, personal and regional representation that

determines the formation of electoral districts and the number of representatives.

Elections in Indonesia can be grouped into 4 types: (1) Legislative elections to elect

members of DPR, DPD, Provincial DPRD and Regency / Municipal DPRD; (2) Executive

elections to elect the president and vice president; (3) Provincial Pilkada to elect governor

and deputy governor; (4) District / city elections to elect bapati and deputy regent or mayor

and deputy mayor. The election is held by: (1) the General Election Commission (KPU),

domiciled in Jakarta; (2) The Provincial Election Commission (Provincial KPUD) is

domiciled in each province; (3) Regency / City Regional General Election Commission

(KPUD Regency / City) is located in every regency and city; (4) District Election

Committees (PPK), located in each district; (5) Voting Committee (PPS), located in every
village / sub-district; (6) Voting Organizing Groups (KPPS) are located at each Polling

Station (TPS).

The following are election organizers based on the type of election: (1) Legislative

elections are held by the General Election Commission (KPU); (2) The Election for President

and Vice President shall be held by the General Election Commission (KPU); (3) Provincial

elections are held by the Provincial Election Commission (Provincial KPUD); (4) Regency /

city elections are held by the Regency / City Regional General Election Commission

(Regency / City KPUD). KPU is independent, meaning that people who are members of the

KPU do not come from political parties. In carrying out its duties, the KPU has the following

obligations: (1) To treat election participants fairly and equally; (2) Delivering information on

activities to the public; (3) Report the implementation of the Election to the president.

B. Review on Democratic Election

Elections have a close relationship with democracy and rule of law countries. The

essence of democracy is the involvement of the people in the formation and administration of

government through participation, representation and supervision. Therefore, one of the

characteristics of democracy put forward by N.D. Arora and S.S. Awasthy is that the

government must be accountable to the governed, the government must be elected by the

governed or at least by representatives of the governed. To be more emphatic, A. Appadorai

stated that the main means for the people to exercise their sovereignty are through votes and

elections (Gaffar, JM (2013). ).

Election administration is also one of the principles of a modern rule of law

formulated by the International Commission of Jurists. In the context of a rule of law,

elections are also needed to ensure that laws are made democratically, namely by institutions

elected by the people through democratic means, namely elections. Moh. Mahfud MD
emphasized the close relationship between elections with the principles of democracy and the

rule of law. Elections are closely related to democracy because elections are one way of

implementing democracy. This is because currently there is no single country that can fully

implement direct democracy. A modern democracy is a country that operates a representative

democracy. In a representative democracy, people's rights are exercised by people's

representatives, both those who sit in the legislative and executive branches. Therefore, these

people's representatives must be elected by the people themselves through elections.

Moreover, in a democratic country the role of representative institutions which are also

legislative institutions has grown increasingly important, especially in the formation of laws

and state policy decisions (Gaffar, JM (2013). Elections are also closely related to the

principle of a rule of law because through elections, people can vote. representatives who

form legal products and supervise the implementation of law. Elections are also a

representation of the implementation of other characteristics of a rule of law, namely the

implementation of protection of human rights, particularly the right to vote and be elected, as

well as a form of equality before the law and government. Mellinghoff places elections in two

positions, namely as a mechanism for the transfer of power from the people to the state and as

a legitimator for the government. Elections can be carried out directly by the people who

elect representatives who sit in the legislative or executive institutions, or be carried out

indirectly, namely through electoral college. Both of these models have their respective

arguments. Indirect election has the argument that voters who will determine legislative

members are expected to have special competences that are different from the citizens who

elect them. They are expected to vote more carefully and have a greater sense of

responsibility when compared to voters from the common people. The choice of this model is

expected to improve the quality of the legislature.

 However, experience shows that indirect elections do not always live up to the above

theoretical expectations. Successful elections by the electoral council require honesty,

independence and loyalty to the objectives of the election. In an indirect election, the

potential for corruption actually increases. In addition, indirect elections are also seen as

weaker in aggregating public enthusiasm than direct elections. Elections can be carried out

through several different systems. Broadly speaking, the Election system is generally divided

into two, namely the proportional system and the district system. Proportional systems are

often called multi-member-constituencies, while district systems are called single-member

constituencies. In the district system, one small district (electoral district) elects one

representative on the basis of plurality. Whereas in a proportional system, one large region

elects several representatives whose numbers are determined based on a balanced population

size.

Apart from the distribution of the electoral system above, citing Douglas B. Rae,

Moh. Mahfud divided the Election system into three types based on the history of Election

implementation in various countries, namely the majority types system, the plurality types

system or what is known as the district system, and the proportional representation system.

The majority system is characterized by the determination of the party that wins the election

must obtain large votes, defeating all opposing parties. Meanwhile, in a plurality system, the

party that wins the election does not have to absolutely defeat other parties. In a system

which is also called the district system, it is characterized by dividing the territory of the state

into a number of districts according to the number of seats for the people's representatives.

The seats for each district will be entitled to the party that wins the election in that district.

One of the weaknesses of this district system is the possibility of over representation

or under representation when the seats won by the party do not match the legitimate votes

received.
 The proportional system is a system that allows equal distribution of sound. The party

that gets the most votes will also get the most seats because seat acquisition is determined by

the proportion of votes acquired nationally. Each Election system has its own strengths and

weaknesses, and is equally in accordance with the principles of a democratic rule of law. In

practice, what often becomes a problem is not the election system chosen, but rather the

election implementation process starting from the determination of candidates, the

committee, witnesses, campaigns, and recapitulation of vote counts. In order for the elections

to be carried out truly form the state organs that will run the government in accordance with

the aspirations and will of the people, the implementation of the Election must be carried out

according to certain principles so that the Election itself can be said to be a democratic

Election. Eric Barendt stated four election principles that must be emphasized in the

constitution, namely periodic (regular), free (free), equality (equal), secret (secret), and the

court must have the authority to uphold these principles.

The World Parliamentary Organization (Inter-Parliamentary Union) has produced the

Universal Declaration on Democracy document which also states the principles of democratic

elections which include as follow.

1. The principle of free, fair and regular so that the will of the people can be

expressed.

2. The principle of implementing elections based on voting rights which are general,

equal and secret in nature so that voters can elect their representatives in equal

conditions, in an open and transparent situation that encourages political

competition.
 All of the electoral principles above must be embodied in electoral laws and

implemented in the electoral process. Therefore, these principles must be reflected in the 10

components of democratic elections as stated by the Office for Democratic Institutions and

Human Rights, namely the election system, district regulation (districting), election

administration (election administration), voting rights and registration. voter (suffrage rights

and voter registration), citizenship education and voter information (civic education and voter

information), candidates, political parties and campaign funding (candidates, political parties,

and campaign spending), media access and protection of freedom of speech and expression in

campaigns (media access and protection of freedom of speech and expression in electoral

campaigns), balloting, election observation, and election case resolution.

In Indonesia, the principles of election are constitutionally affirmed in the 1945

Constitution. In order for elections to truly become a vehicle for the manifestation of people's

sovereignty and the results are truly a form of the people's will, election principles have been

outlined, namely honest and fair, and voters can to exercise their rights in a direct, public,

free and confidential manner. These principles must of course be manifest in whatever system

is chosen. On the other hand, the election system and election administration must also

consider which system best reflects honesty and justice. Honesty does not only mean that no

election provisions are violated or simply that no votes are manipulated. Honesty must also

be interpreted as the system which most allows the people to elect candidates according to

conscientious considerations based on the capacity and integrity of the candidates, not based

on make-up or money politics. Fair also does not only mean acting equally towards

participants and voters, but also concerns justice related to political, personal and regional

representation that determines the formation of electoral districts and the number of

representatives.
 The explanation above provides a theoretical basis that elections are one of the

instruments needed as the manifestation of representative democracy and automatically

elections must be carried out democratically. In addition, the existence of a free and impartial

judiciary is a prerequisite for a rule of law that functions to judge to uphold law and justice as

well as to play a role in ensuring the implementation of the principles of democratic elections.
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHOD

A. Type and Research Approach

This type of research is library research, using a qualitative approach. Library

study research is research carried out by taking inventory, examining written

materials in the form of reference books, related laws and regulations, journals,

magazines, newspapers, and other written material related to the problems being

researched (Sobirin Malin , 2001: 23).

B. Data Collection Techniques

Collecting data in this study using documentation techniques.

The characteristics of library research research with a qualitative descriptive

approach according to Guba in Noeng Muhadjir (2000: 148) want humans (in this

case, researchers) as the source of data collectors. This was also stated by Lexy J.

Moleong (2000: 21) that the role of the researcher as an instrument is very large in

qualitative research.

C. Data Analysis Techniques

The data analysis technique in this study used a qualitative descriptive analysis.

The data obtained were collected, grouped, categorized, then interpreted to obtain

conclusions. Interpreting data is based on concepts, theories, and critical analysis.

D. Data Validity Check Techniques

To obtain data that can be scientifically justified, it is necessary to check the

validity of the data. The technique of checking the validity of the data uses cross-
check, which is comparing one literature with another. Also comparing the

opinion of experts in one literature with the opinions of other experts in other

literature (Burhan Bungin, 2003: 95)

 CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH RESULT AND REVIEW

A. Legal Bases of Indonesian Election

Era Orde Lama ( The Old Order Era)

With the encouragement of the Central Indonesian National Commission

Worker Agency (BP KNIP), on 3 November 1945 the government issued an

edict stating that the government liked the establishment of political parties in

connection with the upcoming General Elections in January 1946.

Furthermore, Law Number 12 of 1946 concerning Renewal of the Central

National Committee regulates the selection of members of the Central

National Committee. There it was determined that the members of the Central

National Committee consisted of 200 people divided into a) 110 people who

were appointed according to regional elections; b) 60 representatives of

political associations; and c) 30 people appointed by the President. It's just that

Law Number 12 of 1946 does not regulate the implementation of elections and

their resolution. However, in 1946 the election for members of the Central

National Committee could not be held.

Subsequently, Law Number 12 of 1946 was replaced by Law Number 27 of

1948 concerning the Composition of the House of Representatives and the

Election of Members, which was later amended by Law Number 12 of 1949.

Elections were conducted according to balanced representation or composition

of representatives that was balanced with constituency bases, and multilevel

electoral mechanisms. In the first stage, general voters elect voters at the

kelurahan level whose number is equal to the number obtained by dividing the

number of Indonesian citizens in the kelurahan by 250. Furthermore, voters

who elect members of the DPR by selecting one of the individual candidates

or candidates from a list of candidates . The selection of the elected candidates

is determined based on the candidates who fulfill the voter divider number

(Gaffar, 2013: 96-97). After the issuance of Law Number 27 of 1948, local

elections were also held in Minahasa (1951), Sangir-Talaud (1951), Makassar

Municipality (1952) and in the Special Region of Yogyakarta (1951) (Mahfud,

2019: 64). The local elections are based on Law Number 27 of 1948 which

varies in implementation. So in 1948 there was a National Election Law, but

this Law could not be implemented in the entire territory of the Republic of

Indonesia because the independence revolution was underway (Mahfud, 2019:

64-65).

On December 31, 1949, the Indonesian state changed to a union state with the

name of the Republic of the United States of Indonesia (RIS) and the RIS

Constitution was enacted (Gaffar, 2013: 99). When the RIS Constitution came

into effect, Hatta's cabinet planned the General Election to form a constituent

that could determine whether the Indonesian state continued to choose the

federal structure or return to the unity structure (Mahfud, 2019: 69). During

the time the RIS Constitution was enacted, elections could not yet be held. The

parliamentary structure at that time was the DPR and Senate which was

established through the 7th KNIP plenary meeting, December 14, 1949

(Gaffar, 2013: 100).

Furthermore, during the enactment of the Provisional Basic Law of

1950 (UUD 1950) in Article 35, Article 37 and Article 135 paragraph (2),

each of which reads as follows:

Article 35 of the 1950 Constitution:

"The will of the people is the basis of the ruler's power; This will is expressed

in periodic elections which are honest and conducted according to voting

matters which are as general and equal as possible, as well as by secret ballot

or in a manner which also guarantees freedom of expression.

Article 57 of the 1950 Constitution:

"The members of the House of Representatives are elected in a general

election by Indonesian citizens who meet the conditions and according to the

rules stipulated by law".

Article 135 Paragraph (2) of the 1950 Constitution:

"The constituent members are elected by Indonesian citizens on a general

basis and in a free and confidential manner according to the rules established

by law."

Election administration has always been a government program or cabinet

work program, although not all cabinets place it on top priority. Then on

November 25, 1952, the cabinet submitted a draft of the Election Law to

parliament which the parliament immediately discussed. After in-depth

discussion, on April 4 1953, the draft was adopted into law and promulgated

as Law Number 7 of 1953 concerning the Election of Constituent Members

and Members of the People's Representative Council. The new election could

actually be held during the Burhannudin Harahap Cabinet era, to be precise in

1955 (Mahfud, 2019: 73-74).

Law Number 7 of 1953 which is commonly referred to as the Election Law

includes electoral laws and electoral process regulations. In assessing the

functioning of the electoral system, usually Indonesians often mix electoral

laws and electoral processes. Elections according to Law Number 7 of 1953

were held to elect constituent members and members of the House of

Representatives (Manfud, 2019: 74-75). The first election was held on 29

September 1955 to elect members of the DPR; and on 15 December 1955 to

elect members of the Constituent Assembly (Gaffar, 2013: 100).

The New Order Era

Malaysia as a country with a democratic political system certainly places

power in the hands of the people to determine who will rule in the kingdom.

Therefore, the general election called the choice of the Kingdom is one of the

important things in Malaysia. Since 1957, Malaysia has maintained a multi-

party political system in which political parties that obtain a majority seat in

the People's Council or the Country Invitation Council can form either the

Federal or State Government. The system used in Malaysia is based on the

'First-Past-The-Post-System'. This means that the candidate who receives a

majority vote will be declared the winner in the relevant electoral district.

There are two types of Raya Options, namely General Raya Options and Small

Kingdom Options. The General Election is held when the Parliament or the

State People's Representative Council is dissolved or dissolved itself after 5

years have passed. Selections Raya Kecil occurred to fill vacancies in the

Parliament or State Legislative Assembly unexpectedly due to death,

resignation, eligibility or withdrawal of election results by the Electoral Court.

There are several legal foundations that were created to ensure the

implementation of the Grand Choice. The Constitution of the Malaysian

Federation is of course the main legal basis for holding General Elections,

namely in Chapter 4 on the Federal Legislative Body. Apart from that, the
Option Raya is also given a separate section in the Constitution of the

Malaysian Federation, namely in Part VIII regarding the Great Choice which

consists of 8 Articles from Article 113 to Article 120. Other regulations under

it include:

a. Malaysia Act of Choice Raya Act 1958

b. Malaysia Law Act of Mistakes Raya 1954

c. P.U. (A) 293/2002 Regulation of the Great Choice (Voter Registration) was

last amended by P.U. (A) 106/2012

d. P.U. (A) 185/2003 Election Regulations (Election by Post) 2003

e. P.U. (A) 386/1981 Regulation of the Choice Kingdoms (Exercise of Grand

Choice) 1981 Last amended by P.U. (A) 134/2013

B. Election Management Institutions in Indonesia and Malaysia

1. Election Administrators in Indonesia

General elections (elections) are an important instrument in a

democratic country that adopts a representative system (Mahfud, 2018: 60).

Since the Proclamation of Independence on August 17, 1945, Indonesia has

experienced a total of twelve elections. The mechanism and implementation of

elections in Indonesia from time to time have developed in line with the

demands of democracy. The experience of the twelve elections also marked

the journey of representative democracy practice in Indonesia. At the

beginning of the independence period of the Republic of Indonesia, national

strength and resilience were not able to hold elections because national

strength at that time was oriented to maintain independence and gain

recognition of sovereignty from other countries (Gaffar, 2013: 93). Since

independence until 2004, when the Indonesian nation has held nine general

elections, namely the 1955, 1971, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997, 1999, and

2004 general elections. From that many experiences, the 1955 and 2004

general elections have specificities or features. compared to others. All

elections are not held in a vacuum, but take place in an environment that

determines the outcome of the general election itself. From these general

elections, it can also be seen that there are efforts to find a general election

system that is suitable for Indonesia (Budiardjo, 2017: 473).

During the Old Order era, the general election was carried out by the

Electoral Office of the People's Representative Council (DPR Office) which

had a Central Election Office, an Election Office for each electoral district,

and a Voting Office in the sub-districts based on Article 9 of Law Number 27

Year 1948 concerning Council Composition People's Representatives and the

Election of Their Members, which were later amended by Law Number 12 of

1949. The election organizers at that time (DPR Election Office) based on

Law Number 27 of 1948 above, the Electoral Office was permanent, national,

but less independent. Permanent nature because the Electoral Office is

appointed for a term of five years. It is national in nature because the Electoral

Office is responsible for the implementation of elections nationally and

oversees the Electoral Office for the electoral districts and the polling offices.

However, the Election Office is less independent because it is appointed and

dismissed by the President, even though in the implementation of the election

it makes its own decisions (Gaffar, 2013: 97-98).

Although there is no election supervisory agency, Law Number 27 of

1948 regulates the mechanism for objecting to the population voter lists and
rejection of voter nominations to the Voting Office, in addition to the rejection

of candidates for members of the House of Representatives to the Electoral

Office. If rejected, the objection can be submitted to the local District Court

for decision (Gaffar, 2013: 99). During the Parliamentary Democracy period

(1945-1959) it was known that in fact general elections had been planned to

start in October 1945, but this could only be carried out by Burhanuddin

Harahap's cabinet in 1955 (Budiardjo, 2017: 473).

Furthermore, during the New Order era, there were six elections,

namely the 1971, 1977,1982, 1987, 1992, and 1997 elections. When viewed

from the aspects of the system, organizers, ratification, violations and

resolutions, no significant differences were found from the six implementation

of these elections. (Gaffar, 2013: 113). According to Article 8 of Law Number

15 of 1969, it clearly states that the General Election is conducted by the

government under the leadership of the President. To carry out the Election,

the President establishes a General Election Institute (LPU) chaired by the

Minister of Home Affairs. In the LPU, the Indonesian Election Committee

(PPI), the Level I Regional Election Committee, the Level II Regional

Election Committee, the Voting Committee in the sub-districts, and the Voter

Registration Committee in the village / sub-district are formed. Government

officials act as chairman and concurrently a member for each level of the

committee, starting from the Minister of Home Affairs, Governors, Regents /

Mayors, Camat, and Village / Lurah Heads. Therefore, elections are not held

by an institution that is national, permanent and independent.

The period of the reform regime has its own record. In order to fulfill

the demands for reforms that had succeeded in overthrowing the power of the
New Order and resolving the constitutional crisis, in 1998 the MPR Special

Session was held in 1998. One of the results of the 1998 MPR Special Session

was the Principles of Development Reform in the Framework of Saving and

Normalizing National Life as the State's Direction. This decree mandates the

holding of elections by June 1999 at the latest.One of the mandates contained

in this decree is that the election organizer committee is a free and

independent election management body, consisting of elements from the

political parties participating in the elections and the government, which is

responsible to President. In carrying out the General Election during this

reform period, several laws were first formed as the legal umbrella for its

implementation. One of them is Law No. 3 of 1999 (Law No. 3 of 1999) on

General Elections. According to the law, the person in charge for elections is

the President (Article 8 paragraph (1) of Law No.3 of 1999). However, it is

determined that the implementation of the General Election shall be carried

out by a free and independent General Election Commission (KPU), which is

responsible to the President. KPU members consist of representatives of

political parties participating in the General Election (one each) and five

government representatives with equal voting rights between party

representatives and government representatives. The KPU membership period

is five years (Gaffar, 2013: 125).

Based on Article 114 of the Federal Constitution, an election

commission was formed called the Election Commission (EC). These electoral

commissions, if deemed necessary, may review the division of the Federation

and the state into constituencies and recommend changes therein as they deem

necessary to comply with the provisions contained in the Thirteenth Schedule.

The election commission may also conduct a review of the constituency for

the benefit of the election of the House of Representatives which is conducted

in conjunction with the examination of the constituency for the election of the

House of Representatives. The People's Election Commission has a vision to

respect the Electoral Institution for the sovereign National Democracy. While

the EC's mission is to empower more efficient, transparent and fair elections

based on the constitution and laws to strengthen the people's trust.

2. The Administrator of Malaysia Election

The Election Commission of Malaysia was established on 4 September

1957 in accordance with Article 114 of the Federal Constitution. At the time

of its formation, the SPR consists of one Chairman and two (2) Members. The

first Chairman of the Commission was YBhg. Dato 'Dr. Mustafa Albakri bin

Haji Hassan, while its members consist of Mr. Lee Ewe Boon and Mr. Ditt

Singh. After Malaysia was formed in 1963, the number of Commission

Members increased to three (3) people. Additional members are from Sabah or

Sarawak who are appointed by rotation.

Datuk Abang Haji Marzuki bin Nor from Sarawak became the first

member to represent two (2) states. In 1981, an amendment to Article 114 of

the Federal Constitution was made to allow the appointment of a Deputy

Chairman. Mr. Abdul Rahman bin Abu Hassan was the first person to fill the

position of Vice Chairman. In 2002, the amendment to the Federal

Constitution was approved to increase the membership of the KPU to seven

(7) persons namely a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and five (5) Members

including a member from Sabah and a member from Sarawak. In order to

carry out its functions, the KPU forms a Secretariat headed by a Secretary.

This secretary acts as the chief administrator of the secretariat. The first

secretary appointed was Mr. H. Cassidy who served from 1957 to 1958.

Since its inception in 1957 to 1978, the Commission's Head Office is

located at the Sultan Abdul Samad Building, Jalan Clark, Kuala Lumpur.

From 1978 to 1985 the Election Commission operated at the Selangor

Foundation Building, Jalan Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur. In 1985 moved to

Tong Ah Building, Jalan P. Ramlee and operated there until 1988 before

moving to Level 5-8, Menara Bank Pembangunan, Jalan Sultan Ismail, Kuala

Lumpur. In November 2000, the Commission Headquarters moved to its

current location in Putrajaya.

Every member, office, and servant of the Election Commission is

considered a state official in the sense of the Criminal Code. The authority of

the People's Election Commission is to safeguard, monitor and preserve the

democratic process in the country through free and fair elections. In addition

to having authority, the SPR has the following main functions.

a. Conduct a review and redefinition of Parliament and the Division of State

Elections every not less than eight (8) years after the date of completion of

the previous review and demarcation matters;

b. Conduct voter registration and voter list review; and

c. Conduct general elections for the House of Representatives and the State

Legislative Assembly, and conduct intermittent elections if there are

vacancies.

In addition, in accordance with Act 19 of the Election Act 1958, the

Commission is responsible for:

a. exercise control and supervision over the conduct of elections and the

registration of voters in the electoral roll, and shall ensure that all election

officers perform their duties fairly, impartially and in accordance with the

Constitution and any regulations made thereunder;

b. have the power to issue to directing election officials as deemed necessary

by the EC to ensure that the Constitution and Laws and any regulations

made for the conduct of elections are effectively implemented;

c. have the power to administer any oath required to be taken in accordance

with election law and all regulations made thereunder; and

d. perform all other powers and duties assigned to him.

The Election Commission of Malaysia was established on 4 September

1957 in accordance with Article 114 of the Federal Constitution. At the time

of its formation, the SPR consists of one Chairman and two (2) Members. The

first Chairman of the Commission was YBhg. Dato 'Dr. Mustafa Albakri bin

Haji Hassan, while its members consist of Mr. Lee Ewe Boon and Mr. Ditt

Singh. After Malaysia was formed in 1963, the number of Commission

Members increased to three (3) people. Additional members are from Sabah or

Sarawak who are appointed by rotation.

Datuk Abang Haji Marzuki bin Nor from Sarawak became the first

member to represent two (2) states. In 1981, an amendment to Article 114 of

the Federal Constitution was made to allow the appointment of a Deputy

Chairman. Mr. Abdul Rahman bin Abu Hassan was the first person to fill the

position of Vice Chairman. In 2002, the amendment to the Federal

Constitution was approved to increase the membership of the KPU to seven

(7) persons namely a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and five (5) Members
including a member from Sabah and a member from Sarawak. In order to

carry out its functions, the KPU forms a Secretariat headed by a Secretary.

This secretary acts as the chief administrator of the secretariat. The first

secretary appointed was Mr. H. Cassidy who served from 1957 to 1958.

Since its inception in 1957 to 1978, the Commission's Head Office is located

at the Sultan Abdul Samad Building, Jalan Clark, Kuala Lumpur. From 1978

to 1985 the Election Commission operated at the Selangor Foundation

Building, Jalan Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur. In 1985 moved to Tong Ah

Building, Jalan P. Ramlee and operated there until 1988 before moving to

Level 5-8, Menara Bank Pembangunan, Jalan Sultan Ismail, Kuala Lumpur. In

November 2000, the Commission Headquarters moved to its current location

in Putrajaya.

Every member, office, and servant of the Election Commission is

considered a state official in the sense of the Criminal Code. The authority of

the People's Election Commission is to safeguard, monitor and preserve the

democratic process in the country through free and fair elections. In addition

to having authority, the SPR has the following main functions.

a. Conduct a review and redefinition of Parliament and the Division of State

Elections every not less than eight (8) years after the date of completion of

the previous review and demarcation matters;

b. Conduct voter registration and voter list review; and

c. Conduct general elections for the House of Representatives and the State

Legislative Assembly, and conduct intermittent elections if there are

vacancies.
In addition, in accordance with Act 19 of the Election Act 1958, the

Commission is responsible for:

a. exercise control and supervision over the conduct of elections and the

registration of voters in the electoral roll, and shall ensure that all election

officers perform their duties fairly, impartially and in accordance with the

Constitution and any regulations made thereunder;

b. have the power to issue to directing election officials as deemed necessary

by the EC to ensure that the Constitution and Laws and any regulations

made for the conduct of elections are effectively implemented;

c. have the power to administer any oath required to be taken in accordance

with election law and all regulations made thereunder; and

d. perform all other powers and duties assigned to him.

The Election Commission was appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan

Agong after consultation with the Conference of the Superintendent, and

consisted of a chairman, a vice chairman, and five other members. In the

appointment of members of the Election Commission, the Yang di-Pertuan

Agong must pay attention to the importance of considering whether the

General Election Commission gained public trust. A member of the Election

Commission resigns after reaching the age of sixty-six years and may at any

time resign from office by writing under his hand addressed to the Yang di-

Pertuan Agong, but shall not be removed from office except on the basis and

manner same as a Federal Court judge. A member of the Election Commission

may also be disqualified by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong if such member:

a. is unpaid bankruptcy; or

b. engaged in paid office or work outside his office duties; or

c. is a member of the DPR or Legislative Council of a State.

In addition to the disqualification provisions above, the chairman of

the SPR is disqualified from office if after three months of his appointment or

at any time thereafter becomes or becomes a member of the board of directors

or board of management, or officials or employees, or engaged in business or

business, of any organization or body , whether company or other, or

commercial, industrial or other business, whether he receives remuneration,

awards, profits or benefits from it. As long as such disqualification does not

apply if the organization or body performs welfare or voluntary work or

purpose beneficial to the community or part thereof, or other charitable or

social work or purpose, and the member does not receive remuneration,

awards, benefits or benefits from it.

The EC can employ a number of people, with conditions and subject to

certain conditions that can be determined by the EC with the consent of the

Yang di-Pertuan Agong. These people are the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and

Assistant Secretary. This is regulated in the Election Act 1958. The Election

Commission in accordance with Paragraph (1) of Article 115 of the

Constitution, may refer to bellow.

a. The Chief Registrar for Malaysia who is subject to the direction and control

of the Election Commission, the Chief Registrar will exercise general

control and oversight on all matters relating to voter registration; and the

preparation, publication and revision of the electoral roll, in accordance

with applicable regulations.

b. Deputy Chief Secretary for Malaysia who is subject to the direction, control

and supervision of the Secretary, the Deputy Chief Secretary shall have and
 be able to exercise all the powers and perform all the functions of the Chief

Secretary.

c. The Registrar of Electors for each State subject to the direction, control and

supervision of the Deputy Chief Secretary, the Secretary shall have and be

able to exercise all the powers and perform all functions of the Chief

Registrar related to voter registration in accordance with applicable

regulations.

d. The Deputy Registrar of Voters for each State subject to the direction,

control and supervision of the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary shall have

and be able to exercise all the powers and perform all functions of the Chief

Registrar related to voter registration in accordance with applicable

regulations.

e. the number of Assistant Registrar of Voters deemed necessary subject to the

direction, control and supervision of the Deputy Secretary, the Assistant

Secretary will assist the Secretary and Deputy Secretary in exercising their

powers and carrying out their functions.

f. The Jury for each registration area who will hear the appeal arising from any

claim or objection related to the voter list as specified in any regulations

made based on applicable regulations

The Secretary is the head of administration of the Electoral Commission, is

subject at all times and in all matters to the supervision, direction and control

of the Commission, and shall carry out Commission decisions, carry out the

day-to-day administration of the Commission office, and exercise oversight,

direction and control over all other election officials. and all other officers of

the Commission, carry out the functions which may be assigned to them by the
Commission in or to exercise their powers or the performance of their duties

in connection with the inspection or limitation of electoral districts, voter

registration, election administration and other matters. The Secretary also has

the power to signify on behalf of the Commission all writings, notices and

other documents of the Commission, all additional regulations made by the

Commission, and all other acts of the Commission, and has other powers and

obligations which may be regulated under this Law and written law. other.

Subject to the direction, control and oversight of the Secretary, the Deputy

Secretary will have and may exercise all powers and carry out all the functions

of the Secretary under this Act and written law, and in the absence of a

Secretary, the most senior Deputy Secretary will act as Secretary. While the

Main Assistant Secretary and Assistant Secretary are subject to the direction,

control and supervision of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to assist the

Secretary and Deputy Secretary in exercising their powers and carrying out

their functions.

Apart from being regulated in the Constitution, the SPR is also

protected by the Malaysian Act Suruhanjaya Option Raya 1957 (Akta 31).

This law contains laws that provide rewards, privileges and protection for SPR

members, penalties for violations related to SPR, and other matters related to

it. Every member of the General Election Commission has protection and

privileges, in the case of an action or lawsuit brought against him for an act

committed or omitted from his actions during his term of office, as provided

for in law - inviting a Magistrate while acting in carrying out his duties.

The election process is held when the DPR and DPD finish their term

of office. For countries on the Peninsula, the election is held within 60 days
after the end of the term of office in the DPR and DPD. In contrast to the

states of Sabah and Sarawak the time is 90 days, a longer time is given to the

states of Sabah and Sarawak to carry out the choice of highway because many

of the population live in the interior. To carry out the grand choice, the SPR

will issue one order to the electoral officers for each electoral district to elect

the desired DPR or DPRD members. After the district election officer received

the order, then he had to carry out the choice of highway based on the

applicable regulations (Hadi, 2008: 59).

C. Election protests in Indonesia and Malaysia

1. Elections in Indonesia

a. Parliamentary Democracy Period (1945-1959)

In fact, the general election was planned to start in October 1945, but it could

only be held by Burhanuddin Harahap's cabinet in 1955. In that general

election, the voting was conducted twice, namely once to elect members of the

DPR in September, and once to elect members of the Constituent Assembly. in

December. The electoral system used is a proportional system. At that time,

the system, as exemplified by the Dutch, was the only general election system

known and understood by state leaders (Budiardjo, 2015: 473-474).

b. Guided Democracy Period (1959-1965)

After revoking the Government's Declaration of November 1945 regarding the

freedom to form parties, President Soekarno reduced the number of parties to

10. In the era of Guided democracy there were no general elections

(Budiardjo, 2015: 474).

c. Pancasila Democracy Period (1965-1998)

After the collapse of the semi-authoritarian Guided Democracy regime there

was great hope among the people of being able to establish a democratic and

stable political system. One way is the general election system. At that time

discussed not only the proportional system which has long been known, but

also the district system, which in Indonesia is still completely new (Budiardjo,

2015: 475).

d. Reformation Period

As in other fields, reform brought about several fundamental changes. First,

the opportunity was opened again for the movement of political parties freely,

including establishing new parties. This provision was later reflected in the

1999 general election which was held with the participation of many parties.

Second, in the 2004 general elections for the first time in Indonesia's history,

direct presidential and vice presidential elections were held, previously the

president and vice president were elected through the People's Consultative

Assembly (MPR) (Budiardjo, 2015: 483).

2. Elections in Malaysia

Members of the Honorary Council of Election Administrators (DKPP said, the

election system in Malaysia is simple, simple and efficient. Even in Malaysia,

the results of voting in elections no longer need to submit disputes to the

Constitutional Court (MK) even though it is only a few points difference. The

election is not too complicated. One of them Alfitra gave an example, that

Malaysia uses a district election system, which is a system based on the

location of the electoral district, not based on the population, so that when a

candidate in the electoral district wins, he immediately becomes a member of

the DPR.
Moreover, voter participation in elections in Malaysia is very high, reaching

85 percent, far above the target of voter participation in Indonesia which is

only 74 percent. Therefore, he appealed to every candidate who stepped

forward to play a political issue that was healthy but popular with the majority

of voters so that it helped increase election participation. "It is unethical to

compare the election systems of the two countries, only in terms of simple

bureaucracy, the district election system which might be considered," said

Alfitra Salam at the Bawaslu Office, Jakarta, Wednesday (16/5). However,

Alfitra continued, in certain matters, electoral democracy in Malaysia is much

worse. Where election organizers in Malaysia tend to side with government

parties, where in 2018, Suruhanjaya Option Raya Malaysia (SPR) prohibits

diaspora in other countries from choosing using the post because the diaspora

is considered to support the opposition party. Then in terms of regeneration, a

character can be in power for a long period of time and can even last a

lifetime.

Then there is no period of office term, so that the winning party chairman can

be in power many times. Election observer Harun Husein assessed that

Mahathir Muhammad's victory in the Malaysian election defeating detained

president Najib Razak received the attention of the Indonesian people. The

reason is, Mahathir has served as Prime Minister of Malaysia for 22 years, he

understands what issues or strategies to play even though in the last election

he was in the opposition party which only had 12 seats.

Malaysia is experiencing an increase in political participation, particularly in

the 2013 and 2018 elections. A significant increase in participation has

occurred among groups who want a change in the Malaysian political system.
Initiated and managed by the Clean and Fair (Bersih) Association of Options,

the Malaysian reformist group wants a number of agendas for political

improvement in the neighboring country. Apart from wanting the

independence of the general election commission that is independent from the

Ministry of Home Affairs, Bersih also wants a change in the electoral system.

The following is an interview with rumahpemilu.org with one of the activists

of Bersih Malaysia, Thomas Fann, during the Election Studies Program held

by the Election Supervisory Board (Bawaslu).

D. The Role of Political Parties in Elections in Indonesia and Malaysia

A political party is a container that can be used by citizens as a means of

participating or participating in state management. As a political institution, a

party is not something that exists by itself, but goes through a very long

process in its development. In a different sense, a Political Party is a group

formed with the aim of winning government power, which is carried out using

electoral media or otherwise. Political parties provide opportunities for the

people to be directly involved in the process of state administration by placing

their representatives to occupy seats of government through politics. In the late

1950s, nearly 80% of the countries in the world were controlled or governed

by political parties (Heywood, 2014). Carl J. Friedrich argues that a political

party is a group of people who are organized stably with the aim of seizing or

maintaining power over the government for their party leadership and based

on this control, giving their party members ideal and material benefits (Labolo

& Ilham, 2015).

There are several differences between political parties, pressure groups /

interest groups, as well as movements. For interest groups have the goal of
fighting for what is in their interest agenda by influencing people who make

decisions. Usually this group is outside the political sphere, but from within

the community. Likewise with a movement, usually using politics to bring

about a change to an existing order in society, some even try to create a new

social order. Political parties have goals that are broader than just change.

Political parties in the current or modern era are seen as one of the pillars in a

just and prosperous society. Indonesia is one of the countries that applies a

multi-party system in running its government. Apart from Indonesia, there are

several countries in Europe that also use a multi-party system. It is interesting

to see together how the multi-party system in European countries works. On

this occasion, the author wants to compare how the party system is

implemented in Indonesia with the party system in Malaysia.

Political parties in the current or modern era are seen as one of the pillars in a

just and prosperous society. Indonesia is one of the countries that applies a

multi-party system in running its government. Apart from Indonesia, there are

several countries in Europe that also use a multi-party system. It is interesting

to see together how the multi-party system in European countries works. On

this occasion, the author wants to compare how the party system is

implemented in Indonesia with the party system in Malaysia.

Party System

a. Single Party System

The term single party is where there is only one party that dominates in a

country, this allows the party to control the wheels of government in that

country freely because there is no competition. The word "system" is very

contradictory to the single party system, because the word "system" is often
interpreted as a pattern of interaction between various parties. A single party

can monopolize the power it gets through politics or it can use violence to

overthrow other parties. Because there is no mechanism for removing them

from the seat of power, this monopolistic party effectively functions as a

permanent or absolute government except through coup or revolution

(Heywood, 2014).

Based on research conducted by Adam (2015), it is suggested that, when the

dominant party wins the majority of popular figures, the opposition can do

little to defeat the dominant party in any type of election. However, when the

dominant party fails to win a popular majority in the context of a proportional

electoral system, then coordination of the opposition can determine whether

single party domination persists or ends. When the opposition fails to

coordinate before the election, the dominant party will maintain its dominance

by winning the legislature. However, where the opposition managed to

coordinate before the elections, the opposition benefited from the distorting

effects of the electoral system to obtain a form of majority government on its

own. Thus, opposition coordination plays an important role in maintaining or

decreasing single party dominance by influencing the share of legislative seats

won by other dominant parties and by extension, the dominant party's ability

to remain in power. In certain scope conditions, therefore this hypothesis

shows an important role for the opposition in independently determining

whether single party domination continues or ends.

b. Dwi Party System

The dual party system is the existence of two parties between several parties,

namely the party successfully wins the top two places in the general election
in turn and has a dominant position. Duverger said that this system was

characteristic of the Anglo Saxon country. Within this system, there is a clear

division of parties that are in power or who win the general election, the

opposition party (lose the general election). The class party acts as the main

critic but remains loyal (loyal opposition) to the policies of the parties that sit

in the government. Budiarjo (2013) explains that according to what he quoted

from Peter, he said that this system was once called a convenient system for

contened people. A party can run well if three conditions are fulfilled, namely

the composition of society is homogeneous (social homogeneity), there is a

strong consensus in society regarding the principles and goals of socio-politics

(political consensus), and historical continuity.

c. Dominant Party System

Heywood, (2014) in his book states that there is a difference between the

single party system and the dominant party system. What is meant by the

dominant party system is one in which there is a competitive atmosphere due

to competition between parties that are competing for power. As for the

prominent characteristics of the dominant party system, although there is a

competitive atmosphere, this system is dominated by a large party, this makes

the party have a long period of power. Japan is an example of a country that

adheres to a dominant party system. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) until

its defeat, namely in 2009, had been in power for 54 consecutive years and had

been in the opposition but only took 11 months before returning to leadership,

namely in 1993.

Whereas a characteristic of the dominant party system is the shift in political

focus from inter-party competition to a factional conflict within the dominant

party itself. The weaknesses of this dominant party system are: First, it tends

to erode the constitutional differences between the state and the party in

power. When the government never changes, there will be a politicization of

state positions because it has to adjust to the ideological priorities of the

dominant party. The Dominant Party system has three weaknesses, including:

First, they are more likely to try to erode the constitution so that the party can

hold full power over the state. When the state never changes the people in the

government, there will be something called the politicization of state office

because it has to adjust to the ideological priorities of the dominant party

itself. Second, the long period of power at risk can lead to feelings of

complacency, arrogance, and the danger of corruption in the party. Third, the

Opposition Party which is considered weak and considered ineffective, so it

will not cause a check and balance mechanism. There will be criticisms and

protests that are easily ignored because of the assumption that small parties are

considered unequal to compete in the power struggle (Heywood, 2014).

From the results of research conducted by Ora John Reuter and Thomas F.

Remington, it is stated that the dominant party has the most important role in

determining access to political offices. Some of this power shares more for

policymaking, patronage distribution, and political appointments and uses

privileged access to public wallets and public policy to maintain its position in

power. For example, it might pressure courts and election commissions to

deny opportunities to register opposition parties, deny them access to the

media while providing broad and favorable publicity for the dominant party,

manipulate court decisions for the reasonableness of election campaign tactics,

intimidate voters, vote on numbers, and the like. These measures are intended
to ensure that the election results never threaten the political control of the

rulers. The tendency of the dominant party to use these methods distinguishes

dominant party regimes from democratic governments in which certain parties

enjoy long terms in office. In dominant party regimes under authoritarian rule,

few opportunities for opposition forces to compete may exist, but these forces

have been largely marginalized. The rule of operation is that the authorities

should ever be asked to relinquish power as a result of an election defeat

(Reuter and Remington; 2009)

e. Multi Party System

The multiparty system comes with the emergence of competition or

competition that occurs between more than two parties. The multi-party

system provides an opportunity for the formation of a government controlled

by one party only and also opens the opportunity for parties to form a

coalition. The formation of multi-party systems is sometimes the result of

coalitions between small parties which are designed and planned to remove

the big parties from the government. Heywood, (2014) states that a coalition is

a group that is deliberately formed by political actors who are competing and

united because of a common goal through the recognition that this goal will

not be achieved if they do not work together to achieve it. The coalition will

work if there is a common interest that will be fought for by the coalition

parties. There are four arenas in a party coalition, namely: (1) Electoral

coalitions, namely groups formed through the agreement of parties not to

compete with each other in order to maximize their representation or

representation. (2) Legislative coalition, namely an agreement between two or

more parties to support a draft law or a certain program. (3) Governing

coalition, namely a formal agreement between two or more parties that

involves the division of ministerial posts among the parties. (4) Grand

coalition or national government, namely a coalition that includes all major

parties, usually formed when there is a national crisis or economic danger.

According to Budiarjo (2013) in his book, he argues that multiparty

systems when linked to a parliamentary system of government tend to

emphasize power in the legislature, so that the role of the executive is

sometimes weak. This is due to the absence of a party capable and strong

enough to form a government by itself, so the result is how the party that wins

the election must form a coalition with other parties in order to run a stable

government. Parties that are members of a coalition are required to always

hold discussions or deliberations with their partner parties. However, on the

part of the party that became the opposition, it seemed that they were not

involved or had a clear role. This was because at an unexpected time this

opposition party could be withdrawn and invited to join the new coalition

government.

Cas Mudde (2014) in his research states that most countries in Europe have

had multi-party systems since the late 1940s and have not changed. Likewise,

several bi-party systems have a fairly stable existence. But in the last three

decades changes to the two-party system for multi-party systems, or vice

versa, have been rare and almost exclusively limited to party systems that have

PRRPs. Likewise, if there is a recent change in the party system taking place

in the UK, it is a product of the mainstream established parties.

This result will change if we use Giovanni Sartoei's typology, this party

system that combines numerical with ideological criteria. The key difference
here lies in the category of multi-party systems, based on the number of parties

involved and perhaps more important for the spread of their ideology. Sartori

makes a distinction between moderate pluralism and its operationalization of

which the latter is complex and has led to differences, especially regarding the

correct interpretation of the anti-system side (Cas Mudde, 2014).

1. The Party System in Indonesia

Indonesia is a developing country. As one of the characteristics of a

developing country is that it is still carrying out development in various

sectors, such as the education sector, the legal sector, the political sector, the

economic sector, and from various sectors these have their respective goals

and objectives. The changes that occur in the political arena can be said to be

one of the characteristics of how dynamic the national development is being

implemented in Indonesia. The changes that have occurred in the political

sector include the democratic system and changes in political parties. Because

theoretically the political system and political situation determine the style and

color of a country's party system. From the point of view of the development

of democracy, Indonesian history can be divided into three periods:

a. The period of Constitutional Democracy, which emphasized the role of the

parliament and the parties which were therefore called Parliamentary

Democracy.

b. The Guided Democracy Period, which in many aspects has deviated from

the constitutional democracy which is the foundation formally.

c. The Pancasila Democracy Period, which is a constitutional democracy that

emphasizes a presidential system.

In the early days of Indonesia using direct elections until now Indonesia has

experienced several changes in the number of parties. In the old order era,

Indonesia already embraced multi-party consisting of various principles. There

are parties that adhere to religious political principles such as the Islamic

Union and Catholic Party, then there are also those based on social principles,

for example Budi Utomo and Muhammadiyah, and there are also those that

adhere to secular Azaz, for example the Indonesian National Party (PNI) and

the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). ).

Unlike the Old Order era which adopted a multi-party system, the party

system during the New Order era only recognized two political parties and one

work group. Apart from the Karya Group (Golkar), the United Development

Party (PPP) and the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) were the result of

'fusion' imposed by the New Order regime. The emergence of a new party is

forbidden. The community cannot channel their aspirations to other than the

three existing political parties, including to non-governmental organizations

(NGOs).

Advancing to the New Order era, at that time there were only two

political parties and one work group. Apart from the Golongan Karya Party

(Golkar), the United Development Party (PPP) and the Indonesian Democratic

Party (PDI) the emergence of a new party is forbidden. Apart from the three

existing political parties, the community cannot channel their aspirations,

including to non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

When the reform movement emerged in 1998 which was marked by riots and

looting on 13-14 May 1998 which was a form of public anger as a result of the

violence of the apparatus when Indonesian students were trying to overthrow

Suharto's regime and resulted in four Trisakti students being killed. Finally,

reforms to the political system began to be rolled out to replace the uprooted

New Order regime. The old political laws were replaced immediately, in terms

of the number of electoral organizations. 48 parties participated in the 1999

elections, while the 2004 elections were followed by 24 parties. Accordingly,

after the passage of reform, the people can play a role in state administration

by directly electing the president, vice president and representatives of the

people who will sit in representative institutions such as the DPR, DPRD and

DPD.

Tunjung Sulaksono in her article stated that the selective rejection of the party

system has also emerged in political parties in Indonesia. This can be found in

the New Order, the party system allowed only a hegemonic party system

where the number of parties was limited by the New Order government. The

multi-party system is considered a liberal influence on political parties in

Indonesia which is actually incompatible with the characteristics of Indonesian

society. The Ordebaru regime has also used propaganda to create anxiety

among the public regarding the potential for a chaotic situation if Indonesia

has a multi-party system. This has resulted in the community being

conditioned to become familiar with the hegemonic party system that places

Golkar as the ruling party. After the fall of Soeharto selective rejection of the

party system has been found, because there is a discourse that to simplify the

multi-party system by using a relatively high percentage of both the electoral

threshold and the parliementary threshold, and by narrowing the size of the

area (Tunjung sulaksono).

 Based on research conducted by Freddy Simbolon (2016), it is stated

that the increasing number of political parties in the reform era and from there

the market structure of political parties in Indonesia has changed into a

structure that is more likely to become perfect competition. This means that

political parties are free and must conscientiously manage and offer products

that look forward and select the most viable. Voters also have many choices

and can make choices according to their conscience. The emergence of new

parties had an impact on the changing structure of the political market into

perfect competition, which began in the last legislative elections in 1999.

Marketing concepts and approaches have already been applied. The political

marketing approach has been implemented by most political parties in the face

of perfect competition. This approach is ultimately a strategic choice,

considering that political parties are no longer able to control votes. In this

perspective, political parties will only be competitive if they can show

excellence in lifting a persona and work program that can provide solutions to

the problems of the nation (Freedy; 2016). In the multi-party era, where the

level of competition is very high, the level of public knowledge is better, and

in the era of information technology and telecommunications, political parties

can no longer run organizations with the more traditional approach that had

occurred in the New Order era, where each community was forced to choose

one political party. Political parties need to clean up and make changes

according to the market demands of political parties. Political mix marketing

in tone approach is the most effective and efficient for political party

practitioners in planning marketing strategies and political parties to win in

general elections. It is far different from the elections in the New Order which
were only attended by three political parties in the reform era and in the post-

reform era, which is known as the multi-party era, the political marketing

approach that has been adopted by most political parties. Even big parties have

used the services of political marketing consultants to design strategies to

become the winning party in the election. Marketing science is no longer

limited to the business world, but has grown rapidly in Indonesian politics.

2. The Party System in Malaysia

Malaysia is a country in Southeast Asia with an area of 329,758 km2. In

Malaysia, there are several ethnic groups that are part of the Malaysian nation,

including the Bumiputera Malay, Chinese, Indian, other Bumiputera and other

ethnicities such as Arab, Sinhalese, Eurasian as well as European. Malaysia is

a country that is a constitutional monarchy and adheres to a parliamentary

democracy system, and the prime minister and main ministers are elected by

the people through elections that take place every five years.

Unlike in neighboring countries such as Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines,

political parties are highly institutionalized, not only strong personalities, but

fundamentally forming a loyalty contest to Malaysian politics. Moreover,

these parties are united as a system, which is characterized by a relatively

stable pattern; wide access; has deep roots in society; and has a fairly

consistent ideology. Malaysia adheres to a parliamentary system, coalitions

are formed before the Election, not after the Election (Meredith L. Weiss,

2016). The existence of a dominant party system that exists in Malaysia has

created a broad and strong patronage. The party system in Malaysia today is

still similar to the Indonesian party system in the New Order era.

Citizen Participation in Elections in Indonesia and Malaysia

E. Citizen Participation in Elections in Indonesia

There are at least 10 (ten) forms of activity that can be categorized as the

participation of community elements in the election implementation process.

What is meant by community here are elements of society outside the

legislative, executive, judiciary and other state institutions, namely individual

citizens, groups or forums, social organizations, political parties, mass media,

both printed and electronic, non-governmental organizations. , and other civil

society organizations. Activities carried out by election organizers, DPR and

DPRD, government officials, and the judiciary cannot be categorized as public

participation because what these institutions do is a daily task (carrying out

duties and authorities as a state institution) in accordance with statutory

regulations.

The ten forms of participation are as follows. First, in collaboration with the

KPU to carry out election socialization. Second, conducting voters education

(voters education) about the what and why of voter registration, about the

vision, mission and programs of Election Contestants / Candidates, and about

voting and counting votes. This voter education activity can be carried out by

various Civil Society Organizations (such as NGOs and community

organizations) which are not affiliated with any political party. If Election

socialization is defined as the process of transferring knowledge about what,

how, when and where regarding the procedures for all stages of the Election to

all stakeholders of the Democratic Election, then Election Socialization

activities are actually more appropriate to be carried out by the KPU and all its

staff in the regions because the election organizers are more master the

substance of the provisions concerning the procedures for all stages of the
Election. Election organizers have more control over the substance not only

because the KPU makes implementing regulations on the procedures for each

stage of the Election but also because the KPU and its regional officials carry

out all the Election procedures. However, the general election dissemination

program includes a very broad range of activities not only because it covers all

stages of the election process but also needs to be conveyed to all stakeholders

throughout Indonesia. Therefore, if elements of civil society organizations

carry out election socialization activities, it should be carried out in

collaboration with the KPU.

If Election Socialization can be carried out extensively and effectively

by Election organizers in collaboration with various elements of civil society,

the participation of voters and various elements of society in the election

implementation process will increase. Two things are needed to participate in

the Election implementation process, namely interest or concern for

Democratic Elections, and knowledge of election procedures. Election

outreach activities, if prepared and carried out carefully, will be able to equip

citizens with both of these things, at least knowledge of election procedures.

Voter education is a process of transferring knowledge about elections not

only to be able to answer questions about what and how elections are, but

mainly to answer questions about why elections. The scope of the Election

stages which become the focus of voter education is also limited, namely

registration / updating of voter lists, what factors need to be considered in

determining the attitude of voting or not voting and whom votes are cast, and

voting and counting of votes at polling stations. The transferred knowledge

regarding voter registration is not what constitutes a requirement to become a

voter, how, when and where to register as a voter but especially why to

register as a voter. The knowledge transferred to citizens is not what, how,

when and where to vote legally but why they should vote, why certain issues

regarding public policy need to be considered in determining the attitude of

voting for a party / candidate. If this form of public participation can be

carried out widely and effectively, it will determine the quality of voter

participation in the General Election (Surbakti and Supriyanto, 2013: 4-6).

In the 2019 general election, the General Election Commission

recorded and reported that voter participation in the 2019 Election increased

compared to the previous election. When compared to 2014, the increase in

the participation rate was almost 10 percent. Farisa, Fitria Chusna. (2019)

.KPU Called Voter Participation in the 2019 Election Reached 81 Percent.

Https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2019/05/27/16415251/kpu-sebut-p

Terbang-pemilih-pada-pemilu-2019-capai -81-percent, accessed on

Kompas.com on October 12, 2020

1. Citizen Participation in Elections in Malaysia

The wave of voters to replace Najib Rajak had actually started in the 2013

Election. This was the first time the Barisan Nasional (BN) Coalition had lost

the most popular vote by the Pikatan Harapan (PH) Coalition. The BN

Coalition only won 47.38% (5,237,699) of the votes while the PH Coalition

won 50.87% (5,623,984) of the votes. With 84.84% voter participation

(11,257,147 out of 13,268,002), the 2013 Election was an election Malaysia

has the highest percentage of voters due to the very strong polarization of the

BN Coalition with the PH Coalition and is considered to be the greatest

opportunity for Anwar Ibrahim to become Prime Minister to replace Najib

Rajak. But still, the high voter turnout in the 2013 Election has not been able

to overcome the Gerrymandaring of the Malaysian electoral system which

maintains the seats of power based on the dominance of the Malay electoral

areas. The PH coalition did get the most votes but only 89 seats. The BN

coalition remains the majority of the parliament with 133 seats (59.91%). The

gerrymandaring of Malaysia's electoral system could be overcome in the 2018

elections with the breakdown of Malay support. The PH coalition can make

Mahathir become Prime Minister and be willing to accept the Malay party

PPBM in the coalition.

So, the result of the 2018 Malaysian Election is the desire to replace

Najib's dilapidated government to reminisce on the glory of Mahathir-era

Malay. There is no eternal friend / opponent in politics, what is eternal is

interest. The PH coalition, especially the PKR Anwar Ibrahim, is willing to

carry Mahathir as Prime Minister, as long as one interest is achieved: Najib

Rajak can be replaced. Even though Mahathir is Anwar's enemy. Everything is

okay. Originally, Malaysian Malays could return to their heyday 22 years ago,

even though they were old-fashioned and not (more) democratic.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION

Conclusion

1. The legal basis for elections in Indonesia is experiencing very fast dynamics

compared to Malaysia. Indonesia has conducted 12 elections. Law Number

7 of 1953 concerning the Election of Constituent Members and Members of

 the People's Representative Council, is the first Election Law that was held

in 1955. Law Number 15 of 1969 concerning General Election of Members

of the Consultative Body / People's Representative Council, for Election

1971. Law Number 15 of 1969 was amended by Law Number 5 of 1975,

for the 1977 Election. Law Number 2 of 1980 concerning Amendments to

Law Number 15 of 1969, for General Elections of 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997.

Law no. 12 of 2003 concerning Elections, for the 2004 Elections. Law no.

10 of 2008. Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning Elections. The legal basis for the

Malaysian Election also experienced dynamics: (a) the Malaysia Act of

Choice Raya 1958; (b) Malaysia Act of Error Option Raya Act 1954 (c)

P.U. (A) 293/2002 The Regulation of Choices (Voter Registration) was last

amended by P.U. (A) 106/2012; (d) P.U. (A) 185/2003 Election

Regulations (Election by Post) 2003; (e) P.U. (A) 386/1981 The Choice of

Great Choice (Exercise of Great Choice) Regulations 1981; (f) Last

modified via P.U. (A) 134/2013.

2. The Election Organizer in Indonesia since the reform era was an

independent institution called the General Election Commission (KPU),

while in the New Order era it was called the General Election Institution

(LPU) which was an extension of the ruling government. Election organizer

in Malaysia is Suruhanjaya Option Raya (SPR), which is an extension of

the government.

3. The Election System in Malaysia is simpler, simpler and more efficient.

Even in Malaysia, the results of the votes in the General Election no longer
 need to be submitted to the Constitutional Court (MK) even though they are

only a few points away. Malaysia uses the District Election System, which

is a system based on the location of the electoral district, not the population,

so that when a candidate in the electoral district wins, he / she immediately

becomes a member of the DPR. The electoral system in Indonesia is more

complex. Indonesia needs to consider holding elections that are not too

complicated. The Election System in Indonesia uses a Proportional Election

System.

4. Malaysia is a country that is a constitutional monarchy and adheres to a

parliamentary democracy system, and the prime minister and main

ministers are elected by the people through elections that take place every

five years. Both Indonesia and Malaysia adhere to a multi-party system.

However, in the reform era, its party life was more democratic than

Malaysia. The current system of government in Malaysia is similar to that

of Indonesia in the New Order era.

5. The voter turnout rate in Malaysia is very high, reaching 85 percent, far

above the voter turnout in Indonesia which is only 74 percent. From a

bureaucratic perspective, the district election system is simpler. In general,

in terms of democracy, the elections in Malaysia are worse than in

Indonesia. Election administrators in Malaysia tend to side with

government parties. In 2018, Suruhanjaya Options Raya Malaysia (SPR)

prohibited diasporas in other countries from choosing to use posts because

they were considered the diaspora to support opposition parties. Then in

 terms of regeneration, a character can be in power for a long period of time

and can even last a lifetime.

Suggestions

1. The Election system in Indonesia needs to be simplified, the use of the

District Election system like in Malaysia will simplify the Election system

in Indonesia.

2. Election administration by independent institutions such as the KPU in

Indonesia will further ensure the implementation of democratic elections,

Malaysia needs to adapt an independent KPU like Indonesia.

3. Between Indonesia and Malaysia it is necessary to continue to learn from

each other from the implementation of their election system, a good system

in Indonesia should be adapted by Malaysia, and a good system from

Malaysian elections should be adapted by Indonesia.

REFERENCES

Heywood, A. (2014). Politik (Edisi Keempat). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Budiardjo, M. (2013). Dasar-Dasar Ilmu Politik (Edisi Revisi). Jakarta: PT Gramedia

Pustaka Tama.

Budiardjo, M. (2015). Dasar-Dasar Ilmu Politik (Edisi Revisi). Jakarta: PT Gramedia

Pustaka Tama.
Cas Mudde. (2014). Fighting The System? Populist Radial Right Parties Adn Party System

Change, Vol. 20(2) pp 217-226.

Adam Ziegfeld, (2015). How Opposition Parties Sustain single-Party dominace; Lesson

From India, pp,1-12.

Ora John Reuter, Thomas F. Remington, Dominant Party Regimes and the Commitment

Problem The Case of United Russia. Vol.04 No. 4 pp.501-526.

Freddy Simbolon. (2016). Political Marketing Mix In Indonesia Parties. Vol.7 No.1 pp.103-

107

Sulaksono, Tunjung. (2016). Soft Anti-Party Sentiment In Indonesia. Procceding in

International conference on Sosial Pilitics Weiss L. Meredit,2016. Coalitions and

Competition in Malaysia Incremental Transformation of a Strongparty System. Journal

of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 2/2013: pp,9–37.

Casse William. (2016). Stress Testing Leadership in Malaysia: The 1MDB Scandal and Najib

Tun Razak. Paper IPSA World Congress of Political Science.

Farisa, Fitria Chusna. (2019). KPU Sebut Partisipasi Pemilih pada Pemilu 2019 Capai 81

Persen. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2019/05/27/16415251/kpu-sebut-partisipasi-

pemilih-pada-pemilu-2019-capai-81-persen, diakses di Kompas.com pada 12 Oktober

2020.

Mahfud, MD. (2019). Politik Hukun di Indonesia. Depok: PT Rajagrafindo Persada.

Gaffar, Janedjri M. (2013). Demokrasi dan Pemilu di Indonesia. Jakarta: Konstitusi Press.
Surbakti, Ramlan dan Supriyanto, Didik. (2013). Partisipasi Warga Masyarakat Dalam

Proses Penyelenggaran Pemilihan Umum. Jakarta Selatan: Kemitraan bagi Pembaruan

Tata Pemerintahan.

Appadorai, A. (1974). The Substance of Politics. New Delhi: Oxford India.

Burhan Bungin. (2001). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada.

Dahl Robert. (1999). Perihal Demokrasi: Menjelajah Teori dan Praktek Demokrasi.Jakarta:

Setara Press.

Dharmawan. (2004). Sang Kandidat (Analisis Psikologi Politik 5 Kandidat Presiden dan

Wakil Presiden RI). Jakarta: Penerbit Kompas.

---------------. (2004). Siapa Mau Jadi Presiden (Debat Publik Seputar Program dan Parpol

pada Pemilu 2004). Jakarta: Penerbit Kompas.

Efriza. (2014). Studi Parlemen (Sejarah, Konsep, dan Lanskap Politik Indonesia).Malang:

Setara Press.

I Gede Yusa. (2011). Demokrasi, HAM, dan Konstitusi. Malang: Setara Press.

Ismanto, dkk. (2004). Pemilihan Presiden secara Langsung 2004 (Dokumentasi, Analisis dan

Kritik). Jakarta: Kementerian Ristek dan CSIS.

Lexy J. Moleong. (2000). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Remaja Rosda Karya.

Mukthie Fadjar. (2013). Pemilu, Perselisihan Hasil Pemilu, dan Demokrasi.

Malang:Averroes Press.

Paperback.Arora, N.D Awasthy. (1999). Political Theory. New Delhi: Har-Anand.

Sayuti Una. (2004). Pergeseran Kekuasaan Pemerintah Daerah MenurutKonstitusi

Indonesia. Yogyakarta: UII Press.

Saiful Arif dan Heri Setiyono. (2013). Sejarah dan Budaya Demokrasi. Malang:Averroes

Press.

Gregorius Sahdan. (2004). Jalan Transisi Demokrasi Pasca Soeharto. Yogyakarta:Pondok

Edukasi.

Syamsuddin Haris. (2014). Masalah-Masalah Demokrasi dan Keberagaman Era Reformasi.

Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia.

Indria Samego. (1998). Menuju Perubahan UU Politik dan Demokrasi (Sebuah Pengantar).

Bandung: Mizan.

Miriam Budiardjo. 2003. Dasar-dasar Ilmu Politik. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Sunarso dkk. (2003). Partisipasi Warga Negara Dalam Badan Penyelenggaraan Pemilu

Tahun 2004 di Indonesia(Laporan Hasil Penelitian), FIS UNY.

Udin Saripudin Winataputra. (2002). Demokrasi dan Pendidikan Demokrasi. (dalam Kapita

Selekta Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan). Dirjend. Dikti. Diknas. Jakarta.

Undang-Undang No. 12 Tahun 2003 tentang Pemilihan Umum.