Jakarta – For the average Joe on the streets of Indonesia, a simple party system is just a matter of convenience, or a bit of nostalgia.

"We're confused," Surabaya resident Suanto said, adding that, more than a decade after reformasi, he missed the "good old days" when there were only three political parties on the ballot papers.

But the need for an efficient party system, politicians and pundits agree, stems from the conviction that the many parties in parliament undermine the country's presidential system, which leads to an ineffective, if not lame-duck, government.

Since the Sukarno era, Indonesia attempted to simplify its political system, but the effort has always met with failure, except when it was under the authoritarian rule of the New Order, which limited the number of parties to three: Golkar, the United Development Party (PPP) and the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI).

Then president Soeharto saw that the multi-party system in the times of Sukarno, who reduced the number of political parties in parliament from 23 to 10, was inimical to development, a jargon he used to build and maintain his iron-fisted 32-year rule.

The policy ended when he was forced to step down in 1998, when the drive for political reform opened the way for the emergence of new parties.

The government team tasked with drafting electoral reform laws was cautious of the possible excessive proliferation of small parties at the time. The team, led by political scientist Ryaas Rasyid, set the parliamentary threshold at 10 percent – as suggested by caretaker president B.J. Habibie – but the figure was reduced to 2 percent.

The number of political parties in parliament decreased from 21 in 1999 to 17 in 2004. The threshold was then raised to 2.5 percent for the 2009 elections, leaving only nine parties in the House of representatives. But nine is still too much for many parties.

Today, the country's three largest parties – the Democratic Party, the Golkar Party and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) – are determined to have fewer rivals in the House by increasing the parliamentary threshold from the current 2.5 percent to between 3 and 5 percent.

The House commission on political affairs is deliberating revisions to a slew of political reform laws, including the 2007 General Elections Commission Law, the 2009 General Elections Law, the 2008 Political Parties Law and the 2009 People's Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and Regional Legislative Councils Law.

Legislators are expected to finish the revision by 2012 to give enough time for the General Election Commission to prepare for the 2014 elections. But the strategy to raise the parliamentary threshold has proven hard to implement and has become a contentious issue that will slow down the bill.

Smaller parties, though agreeing that less parties is better than more, have strongly contested the proposal.

Abdul Hakim Naja of the National Mandate Party (PAN), with only 43 seats at the House, told The Jakarta Post that "small and medium-sized parties should be given time to consolidate so that votes for them would not be in vain in the upcoming elections".

He warned that should the major parties press ahead with plans to raise the bar for parties to enter the House, the 32 million people voting for minor parties would be effectively disenfranchised. The argument, however, does not hold water for the major parties.

The PDI-P's Ganjar Pranowo said maintaining the current system was not feasible. "We can only have a strong and healthy government if the number of parties in the legislature isn't as large as it is now."

Despite forming a coalition government, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's administration has come under pressure from the House, including from Golkar and the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), which are coalition members.

Arbi Sanit of the University of Indonesia said raising the parliamentary threshold would never be easy due to resistance from minor parties, but it was the only way to reduce the number of parties as it was compatible with the proportional representation system applied in the country.

Several countries such as the US use a winner-take-all voting system or single member district system, which could help reduce the number of parties represented in the house.

"This system could not accommodate the country's plurality," Arbi said, adding that Indonesia could not use the deposit fee system either as applied in the UK.

"Every system basically has strengths and weaknesses," Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI) political analyst Burhanuddin Muhtadi said.

He proposed that the number of constituencies be raised so parties would compete for fewer seats in each constituency. This, he said, would reduce the number of parties in the house.

But would the House approve this proposal? "History proves that the people are capable of adapting to new systems. But the real problem lies in our political elites, who only want a system for their own benefit."