Search

Presidential elections constitute a central mechanism for democratic legitimacy in Indonesia’s constitutional system. While previous studies have extensively examined electoral competition, coalition politics, and democratic consolidation, limited attention has been given to how electoral legitimacy can be evaluated through the normative framework of siyasah syariyyah. This gap is significant because legitimacy in Islamic constitutional thought extends beyond electoral victory and encompasses justice (al-‘adl), public welfare (maslahah), and trustworthiness (amanah) as foundational principles of governance. This study analyzes the legitimacy of Indonesia’s presidential elections from 2004 to 2019 by examining the electoral cycles of 2004, 2009, 2014, and 2019 through the perspective of siyasah syariyyah. Employing a qualitative normative-juridical method and doctrinal legal analysis, the study utilizes constitutional documents, electoral regulations, judicial decisions, and relevant scholarly literature as primary sources. The findings demonstrate that electoral legitimacy in Indonesia is shaped not only by constitutional procedures and electoral outcomes but also by the quality of political competition, coalition formation, and public acceptance of electoral results. Using al-‘adl, maslahah, and amanah as analytical indicators, the study finds that democratic legitimacy and Islamic constitutional legitimacy are complementary rather than contradictory. The analysis further reveals that legitimacy is strengthened when electoral processes uphold fairness, promote public welfare, and encourage accountable political leadership. This article contributes to the scholarship on Islamic constitutional law by proposing a siyasah syariyyah-based framework for assessing electoral legitimacy, thereby integrating democratic constitutionalism with Islamic principles of governance in contemporary Muslim-majority states.

Religious extremism presents a major challenge to contemporary legal, political, and religious institutions, particularly when violent groups invoke religious law to legitimize violence and political authority. Although previous studies have examined radicalization, terrorism, and religious extremism, limited research has comparatively explored how extremist organizations construct legal legitimacy through pseudolegal interpretations of Islamic law. This study aims to analyze how ISIS and Boko Haram employ pseudolegal reasoning to justify violence, establish alternative governance systems, and claim religious authority. Using a comparative doctrinal-normative legal approach, the study examines extremist legal narratives through the lenses of Legal Pluralism Theory and Radicalization Theory. The analysis is based on organizational publications, ideological statements, and relevant scholarly literature on Islamic law and extremism. The findings reveal that both ISIS and Boko Haram selectively reinterpret Islamic legal concepts, particularly takfir, to legitimize excommunication, violence, and coercive governance. Takfir functions as a central pseudolegal mechanism through which political opposition is transformed into a religious offense, enabling violence against perceived opponents. The study further demonstrates that these interpretations substantially diverge from mainstream Islamic jurisprudence by disregarding contextual interpretation, scholarly consensus, proportionality, public welfare (maslahah), and the protection of human dignity. The novelty of this study lies in introducing pseudolegal interpretation as a comparative framework linking legal pluralism, radicalization, and extremist governance. However, the study is limited to documentary and textual sources and does not incorporate field-based empirical evidence.

Currency depreciation in developing countries is commonly treated as a macroeconomic phenomenon; however, this study reconceptualizes it as a constitutional issue of economic governance involving state responsibility, institutional accountability, and socio-economic rights protection. This research examines how constitutional and legal systems regulate monetary stability obligations amid persistent currency depreciation. The study focuses on selected developing countries, namely Lebanon, Argentina, Iran, Indonesia, Laos, and Paraguay, which reflect diverse institutional arrangements and varying degrees of monetary instability shaped by fiscal structures, governance capacity, and external economic pressures. A normative juridical method is applied through statutory interpretation, doctrinal analysis, and comparative legal approaches to examine the relationship between constitutional law and monetary governance. The findings indicate that currency depreciation is not merely a technical economic issue but also reflects structural weaknesses in constitutional governance, particularly in fiscal–monetary coordination, institutional accountability, and enforcement of public welfare obligations. The study develops the Constitutional Monetary Responsibility Framework (CMRF), integrating monetary stability, state responsibility, constitutional accountability, and socio-economic rights protection into a unified model. This framework positions currency depreciation as a constitutional stress indicator affecting institutional legitimacy and economic rights realization. The study contributes to constitutional economic governance literature by offering a comparative legal perspective on monetary instability in developing countries and argues that effective responses require both macroeconomic adjustments and strengthened constitutional oversight. The research is limited by reliance on secondary legal sources and recommends future empirical socio-legal studies to validate the framework.

The increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in mental healthcare has transformed the identification, monitoring, and management of psychological conditions through predictive analytics and behavioral data analysis, while simultaneously generating significant legal and ethical challenges related to accountability, privacy protection, transparency, and the legitimacy of algorithmic decision-making. This study aims to examine legal accountability mechanisms in AI-driven mental health systems and to integrate Islamic ethical principles as a complementary evaluative framework for strengthening governance. A normative legal research method is employed using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, analyzing Indonesian health law, personal data protection law, and electronic information regulations, as well as international instruments such as the UNESCO, OECD, and WHO guidelines on AI governance. The findings indicate that existing legal frameworks in Indonesia remain fragmented and insufficient to comprehensively regulate algorithmic decision-making, explainability requirements, and liability allocation in AI-assisted mental healthcare. Accordingly, this study proposes an integrated governance framework that combines national legal instruments, trustworthy AI principles, and Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah as normative and ethical foundations for responsible AI deployment. The novelty of this research lies in its doctrinal integration of AI legal accountability with Islamic ethical governance in the mental health context, which has been rarely addressed in previous studies. The contribution of this study is the development of a multidisciplinary governance model that strengthens legal certainty, ethical legitimacy, and patient protection in digital mental health systems. However, this study is limited by its normative doctrinal approach and the absence of empirical validation within healthcare institutions and AI implementation settings.