Meanwhile, KPU chairman Hasyim Asyari also admitted that he tended to favor the closed-list proportional system, because one design of printed ballot can apply to all electoral districts. “It’s not that the KPU is proposing this, no, but if asked to choose, yes, a closed-list proportional system is more advantageous because the ballot paper design is simpler,” said Hasyim on Friday (14/10/2022).
In fact, the debate is not new. After the 1999 Elections, many parties wanted to change the electoral system to open-list. However, there are also many parties who wished to stay with the closed-list.
In his article “Election Misconceptions 2.3: Open-list vs. Closed-list, Consistency is Important”, published by rumahpemilu.org, election activist Didik Supriyanto revealed that open-list supporters consider a closed-list system to be undemocratic because the people cannot directly elect their representatives to sit in the legislature. Voters only choose the party, but have no influence over which party candidates are elected.
Proponents of an open-list system believe that it can overcome the problem with political representation. First, because they cast their votes directly, voters can continue to be in touch with and supervise their representatives. Second, it can present a barrier to the “bearded cadres”, thus creating a level playing field for grassroots cadres who have support of the people, as well as dedication and achievements.
Third, it forces political parties to initiate internal democratization, to root out oligarchy within the party. We need strong, independent and democratic political parties, considering that they play a vital role in building governance structures.
Yet, accusations that the closed-list system is undemocratic can easily be countered by its supporters, who point out that many of the world’s democratic countries also use this system. If people argue that a closed-list system is like “buying a cat in a gunny sack” (a local proverb that means we don’t know what we are getting), this assumption is also wrong, because voters know the list of candidates proposed by political parties. So, if voters do not like the list, they can simply vote for a different party.
What the proponents of an open-list do not seem to realize is that the system will pave the way for candidates with abundant assets, so the elections become a contest for “investors,” not outstanding cadres. Worse, these investors are able buy not only people’s votes but also the independence of political parties.
It is a seemingly never-ending debate that continues to resurface from time to time. However, according to Ramlan Surbakti, an electoral system goes beyond the choice of open- versus closed-list proportional representation system.
Where does the problem lie?
In my opinion, the pros and cons constitute a false dichotomy/dilemma. This is an informal fallacy, specifically a correlative one, in which a statement incorrectly infers or claims a situation is “incorrect” when only two options are presented, while there is a spectrum of possible choices or logical alternatives between the two extremes. False dilemma is usually marked by “this or that” and omission of options.
To free ourselves from such a false dichotomy, alternative options need to be presented, considering every element of the electoral system as mentioned earlier. There are at least two aspects to consider. First, whether the alternative consequences of electoral system elements will lead to expected results. Second, whether the consequences of each option are consistent with that of other electoral systems.
Before we get to this, we need to pay attention to the weaknesses in Indonesian elections and political parties so far. First, equality among citizens is not yet guaranteed in the allocation of House seats to provinces. Plus, the arrangement of electoral districts is still chaotic because they do not seem to adhere to clear and consistent principles and criteria. Second, election competition is free but not fair, due to the misuse of funds in the voting and vote-counting process.