In order for it to work, there are a number of elements in the electoral system that need to be heeded. First, the allocation of seats and the establishment of electoral districts (dapil). Second, election participants and nomination rules. Third, a voting method, whether by manual balloting (piercing or ticking the ballot paper) or electronic voting systems. Fourth, the formula to distribute seats in each electoral district to election participants (whether using Sainte-Lague method or Hare quota).
In addition, the electoral system as a procedure to convert votes into seats has two main requirements. First, it has to be simple, so it can be easily understood by the constituents/electorate and can be implemented by election administrators and election participants at an operational level. This is important because the open-list electoral system that has been implemented since the 2009 Elections turned out to be the most complex in the world, making it difficult for uninitiated voters to understand.
Second, it must meet the criteria for democratic elections. It is important to guarantee this not only to ensure that elected state administrators have legitimacy in the eyes of the people and the world, but also that it is a pseudo-democratic election, like the one in Singapore or Cambodia.
Each element of the electoral system also has consequences for various aspects of the political system, such as the party system, political representation, government effectiveness, national integration and voters’ or politicians’ behavior. Therefore, before deciding on any electoral system, a consensus on the type of democratic political system must first be reached.
To be exact, what kind of political parties, party systems and political representation system, how effective the presidential system and regional autonomy are, and what kind of voters’ and politicians’ behavior are to be realized.
Open-or closed-list proportional electoral system?
If we look at the history of general elections in Indonesia, we may conclude that a proportional system is a system that has been agreed upon and is believed to be more democratic, representative and suitable for the characteristics of Indonesia’s diverse society – ideologically, politically, socially, culturally and economically. This system is also believed to be more capable of providing stability and avoiding risks that stem from electoral competition.
The burning question remains, which proportional system to be used, open- or closed-list?
In contrast to the closed-list proportional system characterized by political party sovereignty, as implied in the 1945 Constitution, the open-list system tends to undermine that sovereignty. In fact, political parties no longer have absolute sovereignty to determine which cadres they will nominate to sit in representative bodies through a series of education and political recruitment processes, in a democratic manner.
In fact, one of the functions of political parties is to recruit qualified and capable candidates to sit in the Parliament. The expectation is that political parties are able to guarantee that the candidates nominated for elections have the quality and capability to represent the people. However, in the open-list system used today, individual candidates are more visible than actual voters. The judicial review petitioners stated that political parties have lost their relevance with the advent of liberal norms and individual electability, as opposed to the party system.
The debate over the open- versus closed-list proportional system is sure to continue. There are many who agree that the electoral system should revert to a closed-list one.
Mardani Ali Sera, House Committee II member from the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), said the fundamental objective of democracy is for the betterment of the people, and for it to progress it needs people with capacity and integrity, not just popularity. Closed-list proportional system make the electoral process simpler, at potentially a lower cost. In his view, this is a good thing but it needs to be followed by a merit-based system and internal contestation within the party.