Third, vote-buying involving candidates, voters, and election officials is getting worse and more prevalent, compared to the 2009 Elections. Fourth, while voter participation in the administration of elections has increased, especially the role of pollsters and the mass media, there have been setbacks in election monitoring, voter education, and voter participation in reporting alleged election law violations.
Fifth, the integrity of vote tally recapitulation is still a problem, partly because the process is the longest in the world (five levels for DPR and DPD, four levels for DPRD at provincial level and three at regency/municipal level). As a result, the official election results take a long time to be officially announced to the public, and this opens up opportunities for vote manipulation at every level. In addition, law enforcement and election dispute resolution not only do not guarantee justice, but are also protracted.
Meanwhile, Ramlan Surbakti argued that political parties as election participants also have a number of prominent weaknesses, which also points to the weakness of Indonesian democracy. First, essential decision-making does not involve members, but only a small group of elite administrators (an oligarchy), and even the final word rests with the chairman (personality cult), which shows a very weak intra-party democracy. Second, the activities of political parties are financed by the party elites, because their official revenue is far less than their expenses. Third, the identity of political parties in terms of public policy is unclear, because party ideology is more of a spectacle than a guidance. Finally, party discipline is weakening, because the function of parties as election participants is increasingly being taken over by candidates.
These weaknesses ultimately lead to a smaller number of voters who emotionally identify themselves with a party. In short, political parties have yet to become democratic institutions. Various elements of a proportional electoral system can be selected to address these weaknesses. The development of political parties into democratic institutions must become one of the objectives of electoral system reform. Otherwise, an effective presidential system and regional administration will be impossible to achieve.
It has now become evident that the electoral system problems raised by the open- and closed-list proponents are actually just a byproduct of myriad weaknesses that have been neglected and have barely been addressed in the holding of elections and the management of political parties, and even in the consolidation of Indonesia’s democratic political system.
So, which system should we choose? According to Andrew Reynold, an election researcher from International IDEA, there really is no perfect, one-size-fits-all electoral system. No single electoral system is capable of meeting all national political needs or the interests of political groups and suit the historical, sociological and political situations of society.
So how can we possibly believe that we have chosen the right system? Have we implemented both options consistently?
Ummat Party Syuro (advisory) Council Chairman Amien Rais gave an interesting answer – “either or” – when asked about the possibility that a closed-list system is being used for the 2024 Elections. He said the system may be used if there is a law that governs it.
Why is this interesting? The 2004 Elections actually adopted a limited open-list proportional system. The printed ballot papers display not only the names and images of the political parties participating in the election, but also a list of their legislative candidates. Voters can mark not only the image but also the name of the candidate. However, a candidate that garners the most votes is not necessarily guaranteed to sit in Parliament, as the decision will rest with the political parties.
The appearance of candidate names on the ballot paper is seen as a vote getter for participating political parties. However, there were also political parties that came up with a modification to entice prominent figures to run for office through his party. For example, the National Mandate Party (PAN), then still led by Amien Rais, made internal arrangements to guarantee that the candidate who won the most votes would be entitled to a parliamentary seat.
The internal mechanism implemented by PAN was deemed quite successful. The party managed to grab 7,313,305 votes (6.44 percent of total). Of the 550 House seats contested, PAN finished fifth, with 53 seats, and this was by far its biggest achievement since it was established in 1999. When the open-list proportional system was fully implemented in the 2009 Elections, PAN’s votes actually dropped to 6,254,580 votes (6.01 percent) and 46 seats. The electoral system is not the only factor that influences voting preferences.
The electoral “capital” of the candidates being nominated, expectations of voters, as well as the state of the political machine are also determinants. However, apart from the belief that an open-list proportional system with majority voting is more democratic, more participatory and representative of voters’ wishes, it also creates a multitude of problems and bad practices in its organization, participation and management of public aspirations.
Read: Reshuffle rumour gains steam, ministers from Nasdem expected to be dropped from cabinet
So, for what and whom was the electoral system formulated? It is too costly if the debate on the electoral system is only meant to secure seats for political parties and leaves us further away from the noble goals of representative democracy. We still have another option, which is also worth considering, namely a limited open-list proportional system, as implemented in the 2004 Elections. The change in the electoral system this time must be accompanied by a strong commitment to consolidate a democratic political system.
One of the indicators is that democracy is the only rule in managing political organizations. Political parties are democratically managed, decision-making processes in DPR, DPD and DPRD are democratic, societal and non-governmental organizations are managed democratically and even decision-making in each neighborhood units (RT) and community units (RW) also takes place democratically. That’s an absolute requirement. Otherwise, regardless of the choice, we will still debate this until the end of time. (Khairul Fahmi)