Enigma Demokrasi Presidensial Pasca Perubahan UUD 1945
Abstract
If we review the presidential system after the amendments to the 1945 Constitution in Indonesia, cognitively, the presidential system is not regulated or it is not stated that Indonesia adheres to a presidential system. In other words, the presidential system in Indonesia is not expressed verbally in the 1945 Constitution but is only recognized because, both in theory and in the concept of constitutionalism, Indonesia tends to resemble a presidential system. This is where the enigma or ambiguity of the presidential system adopted by Indonesia lies, which in practice often creates debate among legal scholars in Indonesia. On the other hand, among these uncertainties, the presidential system has quite complex consequences and vulnerabilities. This article aims to explain the vulnerabilities and consequences of the presidential system in Indonesia. This research is library research, which means that the data that is the source of this article comes entirely from books, scientific journals, research reports, laws, regulations, etc. Then with the data obtained, the writer wants to describe the facts that are by the topic raised and then produce conclusions. The results of this study indicate that the presidential system in Indonesia after the amendment to the 1945 Constitution contains two meanings at once: first, presidential ambiguity in Indonesia departs from the absence of a clear legal basis to identify it. Second, a presidential system is very likely to strengthen authoritarian power and at the same time has the potential to necessitate constitutional obedience and shorten the life of democracy.
Keywords: Demokrasi Presidensial, Enigma Demokrasi Presidensial, Perubahan UUD 1945
References
UUD Tahun 1945. Seminar Pembangunan Hukum Nasioanl VIII, 1–2.
Gerring, J., & Thacker, S. C. (2004). Political Institutions and Corruption: The Role of Unitarian and Parliamentarism. Journal of Political Science, 34(2), 304–305.
Isra, S. (2003). Pergeseran Fungsi Legislasi (Menguatnya Model Legislasi Parlementer Dalam Sistem Presidensial Indonesia). Raja Grafindo.
Lijphart, A. (2005). Parliamentary Versus Presidencial Goverment. Oxford Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-25092-1_6
Mainwaring, S., & Shugart, M. S. (1997). Juan Linz, Presidentialism, and Democracy: A Critical Appraisal. comparative Politics, 29(4), 450.
Manan, B. (1999). Lembaga Kepresidenan. Gama Media.
Muntoha. (2013). Negara Hukum Indonesia Pasca Perubahan UUD 1945 (M. Haris (ed.); Cet-Pertam). Kaukaba Dipantara.
Sa’adah, N. (2019). Persoalan Yang Tersisa Dalam Sistem Presidensial Pasca Amandemen UUD 1945. Jurnal Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 48(3), 276.
Scheppele†, K. L. (2018). Autocratic Legalism. The Unversity of Chicago Law Review, 85(2), 547.
Zaini, A. A., & Maturidi. (2021). Problematika Demorkasi Presidensil Pasca Perubahan Undang-Undang Dasar. JSIP: Jurnal Studi Ilmu Pemerintahan, 2(1), 55.
Zoelva, H. (2005). “Sistem Penyelenggaraan Kekuasaan Negara Menurut UUD 1945.” Sosialisasi Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Sistem Ketatanegaraan, 1.
Copyright (c) 2023 Faisal Saidi, Siti Fatimah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
