Abstract
This dissertation is based on the research question, “To what extent is the way the European Parliament (EP) deals with diversity in the European Union (EU) be helpful for the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat/DPR), considering that both institutions are parliamentary bodies representing various
... read more
political ideologies of democratic polities with a highly diverse society?” To answer this question, the author has conducted a comparative study between the two people's representative institutions of the EU and Indonesia. Although Indonesia is classified as a state in conventional sense of constitutional law and the EU is an international organization that has evolved into a supranational entity, this difference does not hinder the research, as this dissertation only examines how these two parliamentary institutions accommodate diversity, without aiming to compare each polity (the EU and Indonesia) as a whole entity.
The study compares four primary elements of both parliamentary institutions, namely institutional organizations, political party systems and general election systems as well as lawmaking processes. These comparisons serve as indicators of how the EU accommodates its diversity, which at the outset of the research was presumed as a system from which Indonesia could learn. The two democratic polities share commonalities such as vast territories, enormous populations, and a diverse array of cultures, interests, and political ideologies within each society. In terms of legislative process, the EU and Indonesia are comparable to each other, as they both basically adhere to the bicameral system of parliament. In the EU, the two chambers of representative institutions consist of the EP, which represents the people’s political ideologies, and the Council of the European Union (the Council), which represents the territories (governments of the member states). Similarly, in Indonesia, the parliament comprises the House of Representatives (DPR) functions as political ideology representations and the Regional Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Daerah/DPD) functions as territorial representations (provinces). Different from the system in the EU, where the EP and the Council mostly take equal positions in the legislative process, in Indonesia, there is a disparity of powers between the DPR and the DPD, with the former having more authorities than the latter. In addition, candidates for DPR members are not required to reside in their constituencies, leading to a lack of meaningful representation in the composition of the membership.
Moreover, in terms of electing the members of the DPR, it is required that the contestants of the election must be national wide political parties. This rule excludes local party organizations and independent candidates from the DPR elections. As a result, this system has undermined the legitimacy of legislative outcomes, as local votes do not carry significant weight in the decision-making process.
On the other hand, in the EP election, independent candidates, national political parties of EU member states, and EU-wide political parties can run for office. The participation of the member state’s political parties is intended to allow the EU society to elect the candidates of Members of the EP (MEPs) having political backgrounds at national level. In this way, a closer relationship between EU citizens and MEPs could be established. This gives the EP a higher degree of legitimacy as a representative body.
In conclusion, the EP's way of embracing diversity within the EU society would provide valuable lessons learned for the DPR in improving the inclusiveness of representation. An inclusive representation should be created for several reasons, such as for the sake of the ease of access to becoming a member of parliament, and the democratization in decision-making processes in parliament. As a result, legislative acts will have considerable legitimacy.
show less
