Designing a Constitutional Presidential Democracy in Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The constitutional design of the Indonesian democracy has undergone several significant changes from President Sukarno’s regime known as Orde Lama or the Old Order (1945-1965) to Era Reformasi or Reformation Era (1998 to present). During the drafting of the 1945 Constitution, the desire to form a democratic system of government that is unique to Indonesia has led its founding fathers to adopt an ambivalent system of government resembling both a parliamentary and presidential systems of government. By investigating the Indonesian democracy and system of government through the analysis of relevant articles of the 1945 Constitution, the present study seeks to address the question how to design a constitutional presidential democracy in Indonesia. The research results show that with the election of president and vice president and their accountability to the People’s Consultative Assembly or Majelis Perwalikan Rakyat (MPR), the design of the Indonesian system of government better fits a parliamentary more than a presidential. However, the four amendments to the 1945 Constitution (from 1999 to 2002) were intended to pave the way for a presidential democracy capable of accommodating the characteristics of a true presidential system of government in Indonesia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".