雅加达，KOMPAS.com – 一些倡导者和一名学生要求宪法法院（MK）将政党总主席的任期限制为最多两届。
他们认为，没有任期限制为权力集中提供了空间，并阻碍了党内的政治复兴。
Also read: Observers believe that the proposal to limit the term of office of the chairman will be rejected by political parties
请愿者对 2011 年第 2 号法律第 23 条第 (1) 款提出质疑，该法律涉及 2008 年第 2 号政党（UU 政党）法律修正案。
The article states, “Change of Political Party management at every level is carried out in accordance with the AD and ART.”
In a panel hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, Irpan Suriadiata said that the provision that fully delegates the regulation of the general chairman’s term of office to the party’s articles of association and bylaws (AD/ART) has opened up space for concentration of power.
伊尔潘说：“《政党法》第23条第(1)款将政党总主席任期的管理完全委托给AD/ART，不受宪法限制，这为政党内部权力集中开辟了空间。”
According to him, this condition hampers leadership regeneration. In addition, citizens’ opportunities to participate in the political process become unequal. In fact, it has given rise to oligarchic practices which have an impact on the quality of democracy.
另请阅读：内政部副部长要求根除腐败委员会谨慎考虑限制政党主席职位的想法
申请人还评估，AD/ART的变更机制深受统治精英的影响，从而使总主席能够长期保持政治影响力。
“因此，党主席可以在没有健康的再生机制的情况下长期保持政治影响力，”伊尔潘说。
According to the Petitioners, this condition resulted in unhealthy democracy within political parties.
Also read: KPK Suggests Limiting Political Party Chairpersons to 2 Terms, These are the 5 Names Who Have Served Longest
“Because political parties carry out public functions in a democratic system, their leadership must comply with the principle of limiting power,” said Irpan.
以此论点，请愿人请求法院宣布《政治事务法》第23条第(1)款违反1945年印度尼西亚共和国宪法(UUD NRI)，并且只要不作如下解释，就不具有有条件约束力的法律效力：
他说：“政党管理的更替是民主进行的，政党总主席或根据政党章程和章程规定的其他任命的任期最多限于两（两）届任期，无论是连续还是非连续。”
Leave a Reply