<![CDATA[Political parties fulfill a constitutional function as the sole official channel for filling the nation’s highest political offices; thus, the quality of their internal decision-making has a direct impact on the quality of democracy. Although Article 27 of Law Number 2 of 2008 as amended by Law Number 2 of 2011 on Political Parties (Political Parties Law) requires that party decision-making be “...conducted democratically,” this phrase is not accompanied by a defining provision that operationalizes its meaning, thereby potentially violating the principle of clarity of formulation and creating legal uncertainty. This study poses two research questions: first, does the phrase “...conducted democratically” in Article 27 of the Political Parties Law meet the principle of clarity of formulation as required by Article 5(f) of Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Legislation; and second, how should the minimum criteria for that phrase be formulated to ensure legal certainty in the relationship between central and regional leadership. The study employs a normative legal method with legislative, conceptual, and historical approaches; legal analysis is conducted through grammatical interpretation to unravel the meaning of the normative text and teleological interpretation to trace the purpose of the norm’s formulation. The research results indicate that the phrase fails to meet the three indicators of the principle of clarity of formulation: the word “democratic” is not defined in the Political Parties Law, it provides no operational guidance, and it has proven to lead to multiple interpretations in the party’s Articles of Association and Bylaws; furthermore, the delegation to the Articles of Association and Bylaws via Article 28 does not resolve the ambiguity because the Articles of Association and Bylaws are not legislation. Based on the historical context of the 1998 reforms and Scarrow’s categorization of internal democracy, inclusivity is identified as the most relevant substantive content of “democratic.” This study concludes that legal certainty requires the addition of a definitional provision to Article 1 or the Explanatory Notes to Article 27 of the Political Parties Law, which must include two minimum indicators: meaningful representative involvement from the levels of leadership directly affected, and a prohibition on mechanisms of unilateral domination by one level over the authority of another level.]]>
