Assesing the Quality of Members of Parliement (DPR) a Constitutional Law Perspektive

Uncertainty of Capacity: Public Criticism and Perception

• Public perception has emerged that political parties deliberately recruit celebrities as "vote magnets," capitalizing on name recognition rather than qualifications or integrity. Legal scholars have criticized this practice as prioritizing popularity and financial gain over competence.
• Inauguration ceremonies often highlight superficial aspects---such as attire or public speaking skills---sparking public skepticism about preparedness and competence. Media coverage of these matters underscores both sensationalism and genuine concerns: celebrities in parliament must prove they are more than just public figures.

Case Analysis in Constitutional Law Perspective, From these examples, several insights emerge:

1. Democratic Legitimacy -- Since democracy permits anyone meeting the formal criteria to run for office, elected celebrities are legally legitimate. The people's vote provides their mandate. Yet, formal legitimacy does not guarantee substantive legitimacy, i.e., the actual ability to perform legislative duties.
2. Need for Substantive Capacity -- The DPR has complex functions: legislation, oversight, and representation. These demand knowledge of law, regulation, public policy, as well as skills in argumentation, negotiation, and coordination. Celebrities may excel at communication and networking, but not necessarily in these substantive domains.
3. Obligation of Political Parties -- Parties bear responsibility for selecting candidates not only based on electability but also on capability. When parties focus solely on popularity, legislative quality suffers.
4. Political Education and Voter Literacy -- To enable voters to evaluate candidates beyond fame, political literacy is essential. Voters must understand that integrity, track record, and policymaking capacity matter more than media visibility.

Cases such as Mulan Jameela's entry into parliament demonstrate that while popularity can open doors, it does not guarantee effectiveness in legislative functions. From a constitutional law standpoint, the formal requirements are sufficient for democratic legitimacy, but additional mechanisms are necessary to strengthen competence, transparency, and accountability.

Impact on Legislation and Governance, The quality of legislators directly affects the quality of laws. Regulations born out of political compromise without strong academic grounding risk being substantively flawed, overlapping, or unenforceable. This increases the burden of judicial review in the Constitutional Court and undermines legal certainty.

Moreover, weak legislative oversight erodes the system of checks and balances fundamental to the rule of law. Particularly troubling is the tendency of popularity-based legislators to neglect grassroots engagement. Many rarely interact with constituents due to time constraints or lack of dialogue skills. Instead, some display ostentatious lifestyles in public, provoking anger and appearing ironic amidst the struggles of lower-income communities.

A Middle Path: Reconciling Popularity and Capacity, To address this dilemma, several policy options may be considered:

1. Intensified Political Education -- Citizens must be made aware that electing members of parliament is not merely about choosing familiar faces, but about selecting legislators capable of fulfilling their duties. Political education programs should reach the grassroots level through training, outreach, and civic enlightenment.
2. Internal Party Reform -- Parties should adopt stricter recruitment standards, balancing electability with competence. Too often, parties function merely as vehicles for celebrities to secure seats, sidelining dedicated party cadres who have built careers over time.
3. Capacity Building for Legislators -- Orientation and ongoing education programs for members of parliament could close competence gaps. This might include mentorship from experts, structured training in policy-making, and proactive self-improvement initiatives. Without such measures, parliament risks being dominated by figures who prioritize popularity-driven activities, including social media displays, over substantive legislative work.

Conclusion
The question of legislative quality is ultimately a question of the future of Indonesian democracy. Popularity is an inevitable factor in politics, but without capacity, it will only produce a fragile legislature. From a constitutional law perspective, it is time to demand more than mere representation: what is needed is qualified representation.

Indonesia requires legislators with strong educational backgrounds, analytical skills, and the ability to provide detailed, well-founded references in every decision. They must be capable of explaining laws and policy considerations transparently to the public. If members of parliament can rise to the quality expected of them, they deserve the chance to prove themselves. However, if they fail to meet these demands, they must recognize their limitations and step aside, giving way to professionals and experts better equipped to shoulder the responsibilities of parliament.

Only by doing so can Indonesia move toward a more prosperous, just, and democratic society.

UAM, MK20250918