Rejecting the Abolition of Direct Regional Elections
Recent discussions on the possible abolition of direct regional elections in Indonesia have stirred public debate. Despite pressures from certain political elites who think the practice should revert to being controlled by Regional Legislative Councils (DPRD), the idea meets resistance and raises questions about constitutional and democratic foundations. Key arguments against direct elections involve high costs and potential conflicts. However, opponents contend that these issues can be addressed without altering the direct voting system.
Understanding constitutional norms is also critical. Article 18 (4) of Indonesia’s Constitution states that governors, regents, and mayors should be elected democratically, which theoretically implies direct voting by the people. To abolish this practice, significant legislative changes and constitutional amendments would be required—a step many perceive as a regression in democratic processes.
Transitioning to elections via DPRD is seen as evading democratic participation. The support for the idea that democratic processes are too costly leads to a disconnect between elected officials and voters, which can, in turn, empower oligarchs and other political elites’ decision-making roles.
Alternative proposals focus on improving electoral procedures, including reforming party financing and increasing electoral process transparency. Real democratic reforms, they argue, should promote greater citizen involvement rather than restrict it. Thus, maintaining the direct election mechanism is viewed as a means to preserve Indonesia’s democratic achievements reached since the 1998 reforms.
