Hafid Abbas testifying as an expert for the Petitioners at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Wednesday (4/12/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Another judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections took place on Wednesday, April 12, 2023 in the plenary courtroom of the Constitutional Court (MK). The hearing for case No. 114/PUU-XX/2022 presented two experts for the Petitioners: professor of the Faculty of Educational Sciences of the State University of Jakarta (UNJ) Hafid Abbas and head of the Political and Government Study Program of the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences of Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) Mada Sukmajati.

In his testimony, Hafid Abbas said that the open-list proportional system in the 2024 Election, which has been implemented in the last four elections, has been met with both positive and negative sentiments by society. The system has been met with admiration by many as Indonesia succeeded in holding election and is now the third biggest democracy after India and the United States.

“In contrast, many also reject the open-list system and believe that the closed-list system is the choice more aligned with the ideals of the proclamation [of independence] and the mandate of the 1998 Reform,” he said before Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the seven eight constitutional justices.

Hafid explained the rejection is driven by the belief that the enactment of Article 168 of the Election Law has reduced political parties’ role as election contestants. The switch from the right to determine party candidates to the determination of the candidates with majority votes, he said, is against the concept of popular sovereignty as referred to in Article 1 paragraphs (2) and (3), Article 6A paragraph (2), Article 22E paragraphs (2) and (3), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. This is because Article 1 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution emphasizes that the people’s sovereignty is not implemented by the people, but according to the Constitution, which is referred to in Article 6A paragraph (2) and Article 22E paragraphs (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution—by political parties through the election to decide members of the DPR (House of Representatives), DPRD (Regional Legislative Council), and the president and vice president.

“The open-list proportional system has reduced political parties institutionally since despite [parties] being participants of the legislative election, the dominating figures are individuals. Consequently, political parties are no longer driven by idealism, nationalism, ideology, cadre management, dedication, and competence to solve issues that the people face. These [values] have been replaced by electoral, pragmatic democracy and shortcut-making. When elected, [the candidates] will use their power to break even,” Hafid explained.

In such a condition, political parties will have no more power in preparing for the best national recruits, providing political education to the community within its responsibility by improving the people’s awareness of rights and responsibilities in the community, national, and state life.

Dark Side of Costly Election

From four elections with the open-list proportional system, Hafid said, many lessons have been learned. He revealed that an investigative report by Tempo a decade ago had showed that House member candidates can spend up to six billion rupiah to run for election (Tempo, 4/22/2013). The KPK (Corruption Eradication Commission) also revealed that in order to run for election as a head of region (regent, mayor,or governor), one must spend twenty to a hundred billion, or sixty billion on average.

Such a high political cost indeed only filters financially-able people to dominate the legislative and executive seats in both the central and regional governments. On the other hand, in 2019-2024, Indonesian officials from regent to president receive comparably low salaries. If a regent only receives monthly basic salary and official allowances of 5.88 million (gajimu.com), in order to break even, they must work as a regent for 170-171 years.

The high cost of election has several impacts. First, the people’s representatives and central and regional officials who are elected through the open-list system (politics elite) would not dedicate themselves to promoting the people’s welfare. They have the burden to reach break-even point for their political costs. The easy way for it is to do that is by cooperating with enterprises by giving them rights to manage lands, mines, local natural resources, etc.

Hafid hoped that the open-list proportional system would not be implemented in the 2024 Election because it had produced central and regional representatives who had brought the nation further away from the ideals of the proclamation of independence and the mandate of the 1998 Reform.

Simplification of Party System

The next expert, Mada Sukmajati, explained that the election system is not determined in a vacuum, because it depends on the state’s dynamics. It also depends on certain objectives. Some countries choose its election system due to the high frequency of social conflicts, but instead made it worse. Meanwhile, others changed their election system to achieve a different objective.

He explained that the closed-list proportional system is more appropriate for those objectives. It is the proportional representation system that most countries use, he added.

The closed-list proportional system, he asserted, promotes the simplification of the party system as the voters’ focus is not on candidates but on the parties, not to mention if along with this, the parliamentary threshold is also high. Second, the ideal coalition of political parties is ideological and pragmatic, the closed-list system is more appropriate. Experts had explained that the open-list system was unsuccessful in developing pragmatic politics, moreover in simultaneous elections as in 2019, where the dynamics of the legislative election was drowned out by that of the presidential election.

The open-list system, he said, had promoted personal votes, which had led to post-election horizontal conflicts because voters focused on the candidates, not on parties. 

Also read:

Open Proportional System in Election Challenged

Party Members Affirm Background of Petition on Election Law

Open-List Proportional System Allows Freedom to Choose Representatives

Relevant Party Explains Proportional System in Election

Garuda, Nasdem Support Open-List Proportional System

PKS, PSI Show Support for Open-List Proportional System

Debates on Open-List Proportional Election System

Open-List System Promotes Loyalty to Party and Constituents

Experts Say Open-List Proportional System Unconstitutional

Demas Brian Wicaksono (an executive of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle or PDI-P), Yuwono Pintadi (a member of the National Democratic Party or Nasdem), Fahrurrozi, Ibnu Rachman Jaya, Riyanto, and Nono Marijono challenge Article 168 paragraph (2), Article 342 paragraph (2), Article 353 paragraph (1) letter b, Article 386 paragraph (2) letter b, Article 420 letters c and d, Article 422, Article 424 paragraph (2), and Article 426 paragraph (3) of the Election Law.

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, November 23, 2022, the Petitioners argued that the norms, relating to the proportional representation based on majority votes has been misused by popular pragmatic electoral candidates without ideological connection, political party affiliation, and experience in managing any political party organization or socio-politics-based organizations. As a result, when elected as members of the House of Representatives (DPR) or the Regional Legislative Council (DPRD), they tend to act for their own interest instead of representing their part. As such, there should be a party authority that determines who is eligible to become a party representative in parliament after attending political training.

In addition, the Petitioners asserted, the a quo articles have cultivated individualism among politicians, resulting in internal conflicts within the parties. This is because the proportional representation is seen to have resulted in political liberalism or free competition that prioritizes individual victory in elections. This competition should instead exist among political parties because election participants are affiliated with political parties, not individuals, as stated in Article 22E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioners were harmed because these articles regulated the system for determining elected candidates based on the majority votes because it had made elections costs excessive and led to complex issues, such as unhealthy competition between candidates because it encourages candidates to commit fraud by bribing election organizers. Therefore, he added, if those articles were annulled, it would reduce vote buying and lead to clean, honest, and fair elections. In addition, the proportional representation based on majority votes is costly and hurt the state budget, for example for the printing of ballots for the election of the House, provincial and regency/city DPRD. They also requested in their petitum that the Court declare the word ‘open’ in Article 168 paragraph (2) of the Election Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.   

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---