Jakarta, IO – According to Andrew Reynolds et al (2005), typically, a country’s electoral system is rarely chosen consciously and intentionally, although this has become increasingly common in recent times. More often than not, an election system is chosen out the combination of these factors: emerging trend, historical distinctiveness, legacy of colonialism and the influence of neighboring countries.
Allen Hicken (2019) holds similar view, stating that there were three conditions that prompt the initiative to reform an electoral system. These includes: systemic failure, a catalytic event, and change in incumbents’ preference. Systematic failure occurs when the current electoral system fails to meet the public’s expectations of a responsive, accountable and effective government.
Meanwhile, catalytic event manifests itself in a crisis that connects political and/or economic woes with the electoral system which sparks demand for reform. It can also happen because incumbent politicians support (or at least not oppose) a change in system because they will benefit from it. Another reason, the incumbents might expect short-term electoral benefits, one being to burnish their image as a reformer.
Political judicialization
In Indonesia, the electoral system is not only a product of the legislators’ “struggle” to break from the system used in previous elections (especially during the New Order regime), it is also influenced by the Constitutional Court’s (MK) decisions through judicial reviews or electoral dispute resolutions. The raison d’être of MK to bolster separation of powers and control between branches of government (checks and balances) allows the parties to carry out an assessment and take legal steps against statutory norms that are considered unconstitutional or contrary to the spirit of the 1945 Constitution. This has resulted in a phenomenon called “political judicialization” which MK finds itself increasingly drawn into to settle political issues in the holding of future elections.
After the 1999 Elections, the legislators decided to change the closed list proportional electoral system to elect members of the House of Representatives (DPR) and Regional Legislative Councils (DPRD) to allow voters to directly chose their preferred candidates on the ballots. The ballots not only showed a party’s electoral number and logo, but also the numbers and names of the candidates. However, in the 2004 Elections through Law 12/2003, this was still done through the implementation of a “relatively closed” open list system where a candidate will grab a seat won by the party if they get the number of votes a seat is worth (known as “divisor” or Bilangan Pembagi Pemilih/BPP).
The divisor itself is obtained by adding up the total valid votes in an electoral district divided by the total number of seats up for grab there. If no candidate gets the number of votes required, the seat will be given to the candidate based on their assigned electoral numbers in ascending order. If a party gets two seats, then the seats will be given to candidate number one and two on its nominees list.
This mechanism creates internal dissatisfaction and friction, especially for those who get more votes but cannot sit in parliament because their votes fall well short of BPP. Through Law 10/2008, the legislators decided to reduce the vote quota for a seat from 100 to 30 percent of total BPP. This is referred to as a “more open” open list proportional electoral system.
However, it was annulled by MK through Ruling 22-24/PUUVI/2008. MK reasoned that each legislative candidate has the right to be elected at all levels commensurate with their efforts and votes received. Thus, the 30 percent BPP requirement that a candidate must meet or else the seat will be distributed based on electoral number was deemed unjust and in contravention of popular sovereignty principle.
In its decision, MK stated that the philosophy of voting in an election is that the winner is determined based on majority votes and not on the basis of pre-determined electoral numbers. In other words, every election should no longer uses a double standard. Handing the seats based on electoral numbers means denying voters their preference and undermining the political legitimacy of the winning candidates.