Term lame–duck sessionis familiar to the public, especially among those involved in the world of politics and law. A ‘lame-duck’ is a transition period in the government or legislative body, where the elected or appointed members have been determined but have not yet officially taken office, while the current members have passed the general election period and will step down soon.
John Copeland Nagle in his writings in Lame Duck Logic explains that one of the main causes of problems with ‘lame-duck’ sessions in countries around the world is due to the long transition period from one era to the next.
The ‘lame-duck’ session is so called because members of the government or legislature who are in this period are considered to have reduced power, like lame ducks who cannot move freely.
In the Indonesian government system, the term The House of Representatives (DPR) members is 5 years and ends when the new DPR member takes an oath/promise, so in theory, practice lame–duck session This can happen in Indonesia because there is a transition period between the general election and the inauguration of new members of parliament.
However, in practice, lame-duck sessions do not happen in Indonesia. This is because members of parliament remain productive in carrying out their functions before their term of office ends. Apart from that, newly elected members of parliament usually do not want to be involved in major legislative activities during the long duck session because they have not officially taken office.
However, lame-duck sessions are not a good practice because they cause parliament to become paralyzed. This is because elected or appointed members of parliament do not have a strong mandate from the people, so they cannot make significant policies.
The public needs to be wary of the (in theory) lame-duck session in Indonesia after the 2024 elections because this transition period could become an opportunity for legislators and the executive government to tinker with regulations for the benefit of themselves and their groups.
Looking at the 2019 Election, there is an interesting phenomenon related to the legislature suddenly being productive. However, its productivity is accompanied by “defects” in terms of substance. This can be seen from the many criticisms leveled by experts, both in the legal and political fields.
This raised questions from the public and many protests colored it. A legal expert, Fitra Arsil, also stated that the DPR’s legislative activity suddenly increased rapidly at the end of its term of office, especially during the transition period or lame-duck session.
This increase in productivity contrasts with the DPR’s low performance over nearly the previous five years. Although there are several completed bills with quite a lot of material, the increasing frequency of plenary meetings and the flurry of legislation raise questions.
The DPR, which was previously less productive, suddenly became intensive in its legislative function during the last session. Even though its legislative capacity was low in previous years, the 2014-2019 DPR was very active in discussing bills in this lame-duck session. However, this was also followed by various protests from the community regarding the lack of public participation.
Questions arise regarding the risks of this legislative preoccupation, especially because the lame-duck session is supposed to be a period during which incumbent members lose their legitimacy to make important decisions. Public protests show that discussion of the bill still requires public participation, by the mandate of Law No. 12 of 2011 concerning the Formation of Legislative Regulations.
This flurry of legislation has also given rise to debates between legitimacy and legality, considering that members of parliament who are still sitting have low legitimacy but still hold authority.
The level of urgency in deciding controversial issues in a very limited time is also an issue. Several bills currently being discussed, such as the KPK Bill, the Criminal Code Bill, and the PKS Bill, must be seen in the context of the lame-duck session by considering legitimacy, level of urgency, and material controversy. Forcing decisions in a short time in the face of weak legitimacy can raise suspicions, and there is a need for more time to find satisfactory answers.
Suspicions arose that the Criminal Code Bill, which had been formulated for reform since 1963, had to “give in” to the passing of the bill, which was passed briefly—even setting aside meaningful participation, which seems to be just a formality because it prioritizes quantity over quality – for example, the Corruption Eradication Committee Law.
Therefore, efforts to prevent and overcome the potential risk of a lame-duck session after the 2024 elections need to be strengthened. First of all, strict supervision is needed from the public and supervisory institutions to ensure transparency and accountability in every legislative activity carried out by the DPR during the transition period.
Furthermore, there needs to be a policy that regulates legislative activity limits during the long duck session. This aims to avoid attempts to manipulate or ratify regulations that do not meet substance standards and public interests. The government and related institutions must play an active role in establishing clear guidelines to ensure that the legislative process continues to run with integrity and produce quality results.
Public participation must also be prioritized at every stage of policymaking. Increasing public involvement in discussions and discussion of bills can help ensure that people’s voices are heard and taken seriously. Participatory forums and community feedback mechanisms need to be encouraged so that the policy-making process is not too focused on certain parties.
Apart from that, improvements are needed in governance and legislative ethics. DPR members who are still serving in the lame-duck session must understand their ethical responsibilities and ensure that the decisions they make truly represent the public interest, not just the interests of individuals or certain groups.
Finally, there needs to be an evaluation of the mechanism for selecting and inaugurating new members of parliament. Steps are needed that can minimize the long transition period between the general election and the inauguration of new members to avoid the potential risk of a lame-duck session. Changes in regulations related to the election and inauguration process can help optimize parliamentary performance and maintain public trust.
With preventive steps and increased transparency, it is hoped that the potential risk of a lame-duck session after the 2024 elections can be minimized, and the legislative process will continue to run by the principles of democracy and justice.
However, this effort should not be solely the task of the government or legislative institutions. Active participation from all elements of society, including the mass media, civil society organizations, and non-governmental organizations, is also very important in monitoring and ensuring accountability for every step taken.
In addition, political education and legal awareness must be increased among the public. The more citizens understand the importance of the legislative process and their role in overseeing the government, the more difficult it will be for parties who want to take advantage of the lame-duck session situation for personal or certain group interests.
Law enforcement against violations or corrupt practices related to the election and inauguration process must also be carried out firmly, as an effort to strengthen democracy and public trust. Therefore, it is hoped that these steps will create a healthier and more transparent political environment, where the public interest is prioritized and every step taken by the government and legislative institutions truly reflects the aspirations of the people.