在印度尼西亚宪法讨论中，经常提出两个主要论点来使限制政党数量合法化。
First, the number of parties must be simplified for the sake of national stability. Second, the fewer the number of parties, the more effective the parliamentary performance will be.
如果从历史的角度和真实客观的数据来审视，这两种说法其实只是为了维持史纳延精英集团的统治地位而刻意维持的神话。
The narrative of party simplification is always wrapped in the jargon of efficiency and stability.
This discourse has resurfaced amidst plans to revise the Election Law which is still unclear.
一些政治精英，例如民进党民主党主席，公开表示支持提高议会门槛，以实现简单的多党制。
The arguments that are built remain the same so that decision making in parliament runs more quickly and effectively (Tribunnews, 01/06/2026).
然而，如果我们更深入地剖析这个论点，简化真的是效率的答案，还是这只是一种扼杀竞争的系统性尝试？
另请阅读：巴黎的浪漫与普拉博沃外交的算术
历史记录表明，这一策略是新秩序政权为了控制民主人民共和国而使用的古老遗产。
1973年，当局以政治稳定为名，强迫10名选举参与者在Golongan Karya之外合并为两个政党（即PDI和PPP）。这就是广为人知的“派对融合”。
This forced simplification actually backfired on the party’s independence.
Internal conflict within these parties is a characteristic feature, which ultimately makes it easier for the executive to intervene.
事实证明，寡头更容易控制少数政党，因为所有利益的方向都变得中心化，易于控制。
Simplification, in this context, is not for the people, but rather a power control mechanism that limits the space for public participation.
在简单的强制体系中，反对派和另类声音总是会被往往是一票的大联盟的力量所压制。
另请阅读：高增长，焦虑不会消失
Leave a Reply