Zulhas Denies Prabowo-Party Chair Meeting Discussed Election Bill: Hoax or Maneuver?

Chairman of the National Mandate Party (PAN) Zulkifli Hasan firmly denied reports of a meeting between President Prabowo Subianto and the chairmen of coalition parties to discuss the Election Bill. The denial was made by Zulhas—his familiar nickname—after attending a limited meeting at the Presidential Palace Complex in Jakarta on Wednesday (16/9/2026).

"Hoax, hoax, hoax. There was none," Zulhas said briefly. He stressed that the President never gathered the chairmen of coalition parties to discuss the Election Bill. The statement immediately raised questions, given that several coalition politicians had previously acknowledged such a meeting took place.

Deputy Chairman of the Democratic Party, Dede Yusuf, for instance, did not deny that about a week earlier the chairmen of coalition parties had met. According to Dede, the meeting discussed various options for the parliamentary threshold, including the implementation of the Constitutional Court (MK) ruling and input from civil society. The figure of 4-5 percent was cited as the most prominent, although no final decision has been made.

Dede hopes there will be a follow-up meeting among party chairmen. "I think there must be. There has to be a meeting. But will there be a second meeting? Let's wait and see," he said. This statement reinforces the suspicion that intensive communication among coalition elites did occur, despite Zulhas's denial.

The Election Bill itself is being deliberated by House Commission II. The issue of the parliamentary threshold is one of the most crucial because it will determine the political map for the 2029 Election. Several sources said the interim discussion is leaning toward 5 percent, although the 4 percent option is still being debated. On the other hand, the presidential nomination threshold still refers to the MK ruling that calls for constitutional engineering.

"If it's 7 percent, that might be too high. If it's 4-5 percent, I think this is something that still makes a lot of sense to us because several countries also use the same figure," said Dede Yusuf.

Zulhas's statement calling the meeting reports a hoax contrasts with Dede's acknowledgment. The public is left wondering: is it true there was no meeting, or was there an elite agreement deliberately concealed? If it did happen, the meeting indicates that the deliberation of the Election Bill is not fully transparent and involves parties outside the official House mechanism.

Interestingly, PDI-P, as the only party outside the government, was not included. This can be read as an attempt by the grand coalition to lock in the agenda for revising the Election Law without opposition interference. As a result, the revision could potentially benefit coalition parties, especially in setting a high parliamentary threshold.

For the public, this issue is not merely an elite debate. A parliamentary threshold that is too high can narrow the people's political choices and reduce the representation of small parties. Conversely, a low threshold tends to produce a more fragmented parliament. Therefore, the deliberation process of the Election Bill should be conducted openly and participatively, not through closed-door meetings that are denied.

Going forward, the big question is: will the House open a broader space for dialogue with civil society and academics, or will it instead lock in an elite agreement for the sake of short-term political stability? The public has the right to know the direction of the Election Law revision before it is too late.