A judicial review hearing of the Election Law and the Regional Election Law to hear the Petitioner’s expert, Tuesday (12/18/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W. M.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — Indonesia’s proportional electoral system has been tested in the course of history as it is able to produce a representative body that accommodates the diverse Indonesian society. It is even able to maintain the country’s social conditions and integrity. However, it is difficult to create an effective government through this system. Therefore, it is necessary for the legislatures to create a variable electoral system in accordance with the state’s objectives.
This statement was made by Didik Supriyanto in his testimony as an expert for the Petitioner at a judicial review hearing of Article 1 paragraph (1), Article 167 paragraph (3), Article 347 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections and Article 3 paragraph (1) of Law No. 8 of 2015 on the Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Pilkada Law). The hearing for case No. 135/PUU-XXII/2024 took place on Wednesday, December 18, 2024 in the plenary courtroom to present the Petitioner’s expert’s testimony.
Effective Government
Didik explained that the goals of elections are political representation, political integration, and effective government. From the Preamble and Article 1 of the 1945 Constitution of the 1945 Constitution, it can be concluded that the formulation of the Election Law is based on the Constitution by forming a representative body of the people, maintaining the safety of the state, and creating an effective government. This effective government, he continued, must be created because it is related to the purpose of the state, which is to protect all Indonesians and the entire homeland of Indonesia and to advance general welfare, educate the nation, and participate in the implementation of world order. “Without an effective government, the state’s goals will not be achieved and this is what must be formulated in the Election Law,” Didik said before Chief Justice Suhartoyo and the other constitutional justices.
Proportional Election System
Didik said that since the 1955 general election all through the New Order, the transition era, and post-Reform, the proportional election system has been applied. It has been tested by Indonesia’s history, where in the New Order it was once intended to be changed into congruent or district elections. However, this system managed to survive until today.
He revealed that proportional elections can be organized with variables in such a way that the state goals are achieved by determining the timing of elections in a presidential system. This is important because in the presidential system there are two types of elections: legislative and executive elections. So, by regulating the schedule, it could produce an effective government.
Reduction of Electoral Districts
Didik admitted that in the implementation of the presidential system, there are issues, such as the multiparty system, divided government (elected president or elected executive officials cannot get majority support), and disconnected government (central/national government is not congruent with those in the regions). In order to overcome these problems, he argued for a reduction in the size of the electoral districts. Originally 3-10 for DPR (House of Representatives) elections and 3-12 for DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) elections, it can be simplified to just 3-6 seats for each election.
“This way, it does not only make it easier for voters to vote because there are fewer candidates, but in the long run it will gradually simplify the party system in parliament, both national and regional, and this number was chosen by considering historical, sociological, and political elements in the election,” said Didik.
Evaluating Political Parties’ Performance
For the last 30 years, Didik has not seen any opportunity for voters to evaluate the performance of political parties. So far, it seems as if they are not responsible for the election of their party members, even in regional head elections. He asserted that this happens because those who conduct campaigns and those who seek votes are not members of political parties but the campaign teams of regional head candidates.
“So, when the performance of the elected candidate pair is bad, the quality is subpar, the party washes its hands off it. This is the problem in local governments. With the two-year interval between national and regional elections, because in addition to the five-year cycle so that parties have the opportunity to consolidate, after the five-year period in the next election, there could be changes in coalitions and consolidation that must be strengthened,” Didik explained.
Also read:
Perludem: Five-Box Simultaneous Election Undermines Political Parties
Perludem Affirms Argument Against Five-Box Simultaneous Election
House to Evaluate 2024 Simultaneous Election
The case No. 135/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by the Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem). It challenges Article 1 paragraph (1), Article 167 paragraph (3), Article 347 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections and Article 3 paragraph (1) of Law No. 8 of 2015 on the Regional Election (Pilkada) Law.
At the preliminary hearing on Friday, October 4, Perludem through its legal counsels argued that the five-box simultaneous election undermines the political party system and its simplification as well as the people’s sovereignty in elections. It stated that the simultaneity of the legislative and presidential election cannot be viewed as merely a scheduling or technical issue and the implementation of legislation.
In addition, election schedules would seriously impact the implementation of all election principles under Article 22E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution as well as the independence and professionalism of election implementation under Article 22E paragraph (5). These provisions stipulate that the presidential, DPR (House of Representatives), DPD (Regional Representatives Council), and provincial and regency/city DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) election be simultaneous. As a result, parties have become powerless in the face of political reality when candidates who possess wealth, are popular, and have a lot of material could transactionally and tactically be nominated because the parties no longer have the opportunity and energy to carry out regeneration in nominating legislative members at all levels simultaneously.
In the petitums, the Petitioner asks the Court to declare Article 1 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 (“A General Election, hereinafter may also be referred to as an Election, is an activity to facilitate people’s sovereignty by facilitating the election of members of House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, the President and the Vice President, and Regional Legislative Council, in a manner that is direct, general, free, confidential, honest, and fair in the Unitary State of Republic of Indonesia”) unconstitutional if not interpreted as “A General Election, hereinafter may also be referred to as an Election, is an activity to facilitate people’s sovereignty by facilitating the election of members of House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, the President and the Vice President, Regional Legislative Council in a national election, as well as governors, regents, and mayors in a regional election in a manner that is direct, general, free, confidential, honest, and fair in the Unitary State of Republic of Indonesia.”
It requests that Article 167 paragraph (3) of Law No. 7 of 2017 (“The voting process in an election shall be conducted simultaneously on a holiday or a day determined as a national holiday”) be declared unconstitutional if not interpreted as “The voting process shall be conducted simultaneously in a national election of members of House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, the President and the Vice President as well as in a regional election of members of Regional Legislative Council and governors, regents, and mayors.”
It also requests that the Court declare Article 347 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 (“The voting of all elections shall be conducted simultaneously”) unconstitutional if not interpreted as “The voting of the national election of members of House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, the President and the Vice President shall be conducted simultaneously, and two years thereafter the voting of the regional election of members of Regional Legislative Council and governors, regents, and mayors shall be conducted simultaneously.”
Lastly, it requests that the Court declare Article 3 paragraph (1) of Law No. 8 of 2015 (“The Election shall take place every 5 (five) years simultaneously throughout all territory of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia”) unconstitutional if not interpreted as “The Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors shall take place every 5 (five) years simultaneously with the Election of members of Regional Legislative Council.”
Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : N. Rosi
PR : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
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.
Wednesday, December 18, 2024 | 15:53 WIB 46