Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to find out and analyze the problems of the choice of the presidential system in the post-reformation of Indonesian state administration. The research method used is normative juridical, using a statutory approach. The data used is secondary data, with primary legal material from the 1945 Constitution and other laws and regulations. The results show that the choice of a presidential government system becomes a problem when juxtaposed with the multi-party system (combined phrase of political parties) in the 1945 Constitution. The MPR in the trial between 1999 and 2002 did not choose a quasi-presidential system in the original 1945 Constitution as well as a parliamentary system and explicitly transplant the American-style presidential system of government, without paying attention to ideological reasons and the identity and traditions of the state that have been explored by the nation's founders such as Soepomo, Soekarno and Muhammad Hatta.�
Highlights
One of the results of the amendment to the 1945 Constitution is changing the Indonesian state administration system from power in the MPR to a people's sovereignty system, which places the position of state institutions in an equal position
The election for the office of headship is marked by, among other things, the holding of the election of the President and Vice President (Article 6A of the 1945 Constitution) in the Indonesian constitutional system. This general election can be a marker of the characteristics of a presidential system of government where the previous presidential election was carried out by the MPR institution
While the weakness of the presidential government system is that every government policy taken is a bargaining position between the legislature and the executive, which means that there is a prioritization of representative - elitist and not participatory - populist attitudes.[2]
Summary
One of the results of the amendment to the 1945 Constitution is changing the Indonesian state administration system from power in the MPR to a people's sovereignty system, which places the position of state institutions in an equal position. While the weakness of the presidential government system is that every government policy taken is a bargaining position between the legislature and the executive, which means that there is a prioritization of representative - elitist and not participatory - populist attitudes.[2] Constitutional theory has long held that the separation of powers is unique to presidential systems and incompatible with parliamentary ones This conventional wisdom has hardened over the years with the proliferation of scholarship debating the merits of presidential or parliamentary systems for emerging democracies or reconstructed states.[3] The choice of a presidential government system with a direct election model is similar to the presidential election in the United States, it differs in socio-economic and political culture and democratic maturity. The government system that applies in every country is essentially a relation between
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
