A day earlier, students from various higher education institutions rallied outside the House to protest against the rise in lawmakers’ housing allowances. One of the demands raised during the protest was the dissolution of the House, which the students regard as representing the rulers more than the people.

As someone who wrote his PhD thesis about the Indonesian legislature at the beginning of the Reform Era, such an aspiration inspired me to think about the current role of the House in the country’s political system.

Is it still important in safeguarding democracy or would abolishing it completely be better?

The main argument for abolishing the House is its failure to fulfill its functions, resulting in ineffectiveness and high costs for the general public.

Historically, a presidential decree in 1959 set a precedent for dissolution of the legislative branch. At that time, however, Indonesia operated a parliamentary system of government. The decree guided Indonesia back to the presidential system under the 1945 Constitution, which gives no room for abolition of the House.

In Indonesian practice, however, the government, not the national legislature, prepares and decides on most legislative and budgetary work. Legislative members have very limited input. Consequently, the legislative body seems to merely rubber-stamp government policies rather than act as a true legislative partner.