Foreign Experts Criticize Constitutional Court’s Decision on 2024 Presidential Election Lawsuit

CNN Indonesia

Tuesday, 23 April 2024 07:36 IWST

Jakarta, CNN Indonesia —

International politics and security expert at Murdoch University from AustraliaIan Wilson, criticism of the arguments of the Constitutional Court (MK) in considering the decision of the 2024 presidential election dispute, Monday (22/4).

Wilson cited the statement by a Constitutional Court judge who said that social support (Bansos) and vote-raising for presidential and vice-presidential candidates were not linked.

“They seem to reason by saying that there is no relationship between increasing social support and voter turnout, as if material incentives have any effect, and that there is no evidence of political goals being distributing social support,” he said. CNNDonesia.com.

Wilson also confirmed the recommendation of the Constitutional Court that social assistance must be regulated by law at the electoral level so that it does not encourage irregularities.

“This seems contradictory, but it shows the separation between procedures and ethical norms in politics,” he reiterated.

On Monday, the Constitutional Court held a hearing on the dispute over the results of the 2024 general election (PHPU).

This presidential election dispute reached the court after the losing couple Anies Baswedan-Muhaimin Iskandar (Cak Imin) and Ganjar Pranowo-Mahfud MD filed a lawsuit in the Constitutional Court.

Anies-Imin believes that there was fraud before the election, including social support that was thought to have influenced votes in the presidential election.

In the decision hearing at the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani said that the court did not find any connection between social support and raising votes.

“Regarding the Petitioner’s argument linking social assistance to voter choice, the Court does not believe that there is a causal or material relationship between the distribution of social assistance and an increase in the vote share of one of the candidate pairs,” said Arsul.

Arsul also said that the evidence submitted by the Anies-Muhaimin couple was not fully or completely presented or submitted as evidence.

The existing evidence, he said, was not able to convince the judges of the Constitutional Court.

“Based on this, according to the applicant’s argument, according to the Court, there is no evidence that empirically shows that social support has actually influenced/directed the voter’s choice by force,” said Arsul.

(one/block)