The revision of Election Law No. 7 Year 2017 was important issue in national political debate. The discussion about changes in election rules not only happened in Parliament’s House, but also amongst academics, civil society activities, to democracy-watch organisations. Many parties thought that the Indonesian election system needed serious update because it had stagnated and too pragmatic in its practice. This was exemplified by what Perludem (Association for Election and Democracy) did recently.

The demand for revision became louder after the Constitutional Court reviewed a number of articles in the Law. A number of decisions issued by the Constitutional Court changed the Indonesian election system in significant way. In a number of academic and parliament discussions, the election law revision was not simply about administrative change, but a part of “constitutional engineering” to strengthen the democracy integrity and to keep people’s sovereignty.

One important foundation of the revision was the Constitutional Court decision No. 135 Year 2024 that opened the way for separation of national and local elections starting in 2031. The decision was a response to criticism about the simultaneous election model which put significant pressures on local democracy.

In practice, national issue often dominated public debate during election. As a result, local issues such as education, health, infrastructure, and local community welfare drowned amidst national political elites’ rivalry. In a discussion forum on election, Titi Anggraini from Perludem mentioned on Wednesday (22/5) that “local democracy became the end tail of a centralised national politics.”

Separating national and local elections was key to strengthening local autonomy. By separating the election schedules, communities were able to focus on choosing leaders and representatives on the basis of real needs in their respective area, rather than being drawn by national political polarisation.

In addition, the Constitutional Court decision No. 116/PUU-XXI/2023 on parliamentary threshold became a key concern. In the decision, the Constitutional Court asked that the parliamentary threshold of 4 percent be reviewed because it led to under-representation of people’s voices in Parliament.

The above situation had drawn criticism as millions of official votes became worthless as preferred political party(ies) did not pass the national threshold. In the context of representative democracy, this potentially undermined the significance of people’s sovereignty.

Another debate in the law revision focused on the future form of the election system. In Parliament’s Commission omisi, the discussion was about the alternatives between open proportional system, closed proportional system, or a mixed system. The open proportional system currently in use gave much space for people to choose legislative candidates directly. yet, the system was under criticism as it led to costly competition amongst candidates within a political party.

Meanwhile, people believed that the closed proportional system strengthened leadership regeneration within parties, but risked widening elites’ ability within parties to choose representatives. For this reason, many people promoted mixed system as a middle ground between public representation and strengthening political parties’ organisations.

In addition to election system, discussion also touched on the number of seats per district or district magnitude. There was suggestion that the number of seats within election precinct be reduced, for example to three to six seats. The objective was to strengthen relation between constituents and representatives.

“The smaller the election precinct, the closer the relation between people and their representatives,” according to view emerging from the election simulation during discussion at Parliament. With smaller precinct, legislative members were able, hopefully, to get better understanding of local issues and not merely be present during campaign.

Presidential threshold was another important issue in the debate. People opined that the minimum requirement of 20% parliament seats limited the space for new national leaders to emerge. Many people thought that the rule strengthened political party oligarchy and suppressed political competition.

N the other hand, revision of election law had to strengthen local democracy and reduced centralised political parties. In current political practice in Indonesia, recruitment of candidates for local leaders or legislative body was driven primarily by political elites at national level.

The result, many candidates for local election did not have social and emotional bond with the communities they represented. This “imported candidates” phenomenon from Jakarta was major criticism of centralised political system.

A local democracy activist even said that “local autonomy was misleading when the candidates were actually chosen by elites at national level.” That statement reflected deep concerns that local democracy had not given local people space for independently choosing their own leaders.

Another major issue that came up during discussion was the cost of election. To date, the cost of local election was drawn from local budget. This led local governments to often refocus budget allocated for public services such as health, education, and social assistance.

For this reason, there was suggestion to fully funded local election using national budget. Such move was necessary in order to reduce the local fiscal burden and to maintain quality of public services during election.

In addition, there was the idea to establish non-physical Special Allocation Funds for Local democracy. The funds would be used to support political education, literacy of voters, and increasing people’s participation. This way, democracy would no longer be understood as a routine five-yearly election cycle, but as an ongoing public education process.

In the context of transparency and eradication of political corruption, the revision of election law proposed new innovations. One of such innovation was the reporting of campaign funds digitally and in real-time. The system allowed communities to monitor directly flows of campaign funds throughout election period.

“Campaign funds transparency is key to cut chains of money politics,” stated one view during discussion on election reform. Through digital system, each political transaction could be traced clearly and easily for public view.

In addition, limitation on the use of cash in campaign was critical in order to increase ability to track down the flow of political funds. To date, the practice of money politics such as “daybreak attack” was difficult to prove as transaction used cash and was done in secret.

The green election concept was promoted as part of election reform. Use of campaign physical props was deemed expensive, and resulted in large visual rubbish and environmental waste. For that reason, information dissemination about candidates should be done through digital platform provided by election administration body.

Despite the many reform proposals, the revision of election law faced its major challenges. One such challenge was the conflict of interests within the parliament itself. Many observers believed that legislators were often snared in self-dealing – creating rules which benefited their own parties.

As a result, discussion of the revision of election law often went slowly and sped up as election neared. The situation led to rushed changes with minimum public participation.
For this reason, a number of experts proposed establishment of an independent panel of experts such as Team-Seven during the reform era in 1999. The Panel would be tasked with preparing academic paper and the draft revision of the election law objectively without bias of any practical political interests.

Titi even equated this situation as “foxes guarding chicken coop,” when the people who prepared the election law were the same ones who had the interests in the outcome of the law.

In the end, revision of election law was not merely a technical general election issue. Rather, it was a vital bet on the direction of Indonesia’s future. Whether democracy would move under the shadow of political oligarchy and big investors, or it returned to its true principle that full sovereignty was in the hands of the people. (Ast)