On Wednesday, Indonesia's top court ruled that parties would not need a minimum 20% of representation in their regional assemblies in order to field a candidate.
...
If passed, it would maintain the status quo, which favours parties in the ruling coalition of the outgoing president
How?
... which favours parties in the ruling coalition ... As a result, many local elections are expected to be uncontested affairs.
The current "status quo" is that the current ruler gets everything he wants.
I don't see how removing the 20% requirement could mean this. Wouldn't that be the opposite? Less restrictions meaning more competition?
There's a bit of different powers at play.
Initially there's the 20% threshold.
The MK (Makamah Konstitusi, or Constitution Court) wants to change that exactly to encourage healthier competition. They then published a ruling that embodies this.
The DPR (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, or House of Representatives) somehow thought they're above the law, and decided they want to pass a bill that overturns this ruling.
At the same time, the current president wants to endorse his son to be the governor of Jakarta. In fact, this has been his ultimate goal, to make all his sons "follow his footsteps" to secure his power for generations to come.
However, it is written that one needs to be at least 30 years old to be nominated. He is just right below, at 29 years old. The people are using this to keep him from power, and MK agrees. DPR is trying to overturn that too.
Do note that previously, the current president had mendled with MK ruling using a friend on the inside to get his older son to be eligible for vice-presidency. He is now elected.
And that, my friend, is what the Indonesian people had enough of.
While having 20% representation would be trivial for the big parties, smaller parties would have to form coalitions in order to field a candidate — it’s easy to see how this results in much fewer candidates and w.r.t. the cronyism already rampant in parts of the Indonesian political landscape, it’s clear that quite a few people have gotten where they are through nepotism.
Getting rid of the 20% requirement would mean smaller parties being able to put forward their own candidates, giving much more choice instead of, for example, the usual big three which, for the average voter, comes down to picking the lesser evil.
The rapid response by the parliament has left a bad impression all a round because they only seem to ever react this fast when their interests are on the line as opposed to i.e. procrastinating passing the asset seizure bill (which has been pending since 2010 if I recall correctly), which would allow the state to seize assets from government officials convicted of corruption.
At least, this is what I gather hearing from friends and family at home.
edit: spelling
Ah I missed this part of the article:
Yet within 24 hours, parliament tabled an emergency motion to reverse these changes - a move which has sparked widespread condemnation and fears of a constitutional crisis.
This does make sense now. It's just a very poorly written article :|
BBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for BBC News:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8er13zy1gxo
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/