<![CDATA[Comparative analysis has become an important tool in Indonesian constitutional law scholarship, yet its use is not always accompanied by methodological reflection on what is being compared, why a particular jurisdiction is selected, and how constitutional ideas change when transferred into a different legal environment. This article examines these questions through Günter Frankenberg’s critical approach to comparative law, with particular attention to cognitive control, decontextualization, recontextualization, odd details, and his IKEA theory of constitutional transfer. This doctrinal legal research employs conceptual, intellectual-historical, and critical approaches to comparative legal scholarship and selected Indonesian legal studies that explicitly employ comparative methods. The article demonstrates that the central problem in comparative constitutional analysis does not lie in the use of foreign experiences itself, but in the tendency to treat foreign law as transferable material without sufficiently examining context, the position of the comparer, and the transformation of meaning that occurs through the process of transfer. Based on a reconstruction of Frankenberg’s scholarship, the article develops an operational framework that places reflexivity, jurisdictional selection, contextual analysis, identification of transformed meanings, and post-transfer evaluation at the centre of comparative inquiry. The framework is not presented as a direct reproduction of Frankenberg’s methodology, but as a methodological development adapted to the needs of constitutional law scholarship in Indonesia. The article argues that comparative constitutionalism should move beyond the search for similarities or best practices and instead function as a critical method for understanding differences, testing assumptions, and questioning the movement of constitutional ideas across legal contexts.]]>
