The legislative elections passed relatively peacefully, so now what?

We could all sit down and argue hypothetically about the exquisite courting dance between political parties forming coalitions for the upcoming presidential race.

But ultimately, the reality will be more heart wrenching than Dancing with the Stars or Indonesian Idol.

We should definitely investigate irregularities in registrations and election conduct, impose stiff penalties for offenders, and reschedule elections where necessary.

We need election results to be legitimate and final. Don’t let Indonesia’s political system inch any closer toward Thailand, where the legitimacy of the election system is undermined and those elected face massive street protests.

Or we could ponder the major problems in our current system, and start preparing solutions. Arguably, political parties and election candidates were not well prepared when the Constitutional Court (MK) announced its decision to make the legislative elections candidate-centered instead of party-centered.

Campaign advertising was not geared toward coherent and compelling personal stories of candidates, but remained heavy with party symbols and figures and messages.

Even when candidates learn to do it right under the prevailing system, and assuming the elected legislature and incoming government do not mess with the Constitutional Court ruling, it will still be very costly to get elected as a legislator, either at national or regional  level.

Lee Kuan Yew, the longtime successful prime minister of Singapore who still holds sway in government, came out with a simple and powerful law in his memoirs. The higher the cost of being elected to public office, the less clean the government will be.

We can talk all we want about having competent and genuine candidates, but even the competent and pure of heart need money to win.  

The current system is very costly and forces candidates to spend massively.

The conundrum is whether to borrow and hope to recoup after winning, or to solicit campaign

contributions from wealthy donors and remain beholden to their interests.

We need to decrease the size of electorates (dapil) so candidates can focus their campaigns more effectively and provide more bangs for their bucks.

The current system, a multiple seat constituency, needs to change to single seat constituency – a district system.

Now is a rare moment where political parties’ needs coincide with public interest. Election candidates want to reduce their campaign costs and the public wants more accountability.

In district system, a political party only fields one candidate in each district, thus escaping bloody and costly feuds where candidates from the same party fight each other for votes.  

The accountability side will also be well served. With only one legislator, the electorate knows who they can hold responsible for policies in parliament and whether to punish or re-elect candidates accordingly.

What about claims that a district system would weaken parties?

Maybe this question should be reframed to “what kind of election system is best for Indonesia?” We adopted the proportional system from the Dutch.

In such a small country, it is safe to assume that regional differences do not really matter, thus whoever becomes a member of parliament within one party has little consequence.

But Indonesia is much larger than the Netherlands, with real regional differences. Our diversity should be a strength instead of being glossed-over and ignored.

Having a Jakarta native with a fancy degree masquerading as a local to get a seat in the national legislature will just not do anymore.  

This approach has already done too much damage. Indonesia needs more local people with local wisdom and real knowledge of local problems in the national scene.  

Having a system of party primaries could enforce party discipline. No longer could someone be assigned to be candidate in one area just because of proximity – or worse, financial contributions to the party chairman.

That person must prove their mettle in an intra-party election. Thus representing the view of local party members in the corresponding district. Whoever emerges as the winner could then run as the party candidate.

If a party thinks, through surveys or other means, that it is not competitive in one area, it could opt to not run a candidate but support another party’s candidate in that area. A political pact should be made before the election and become the foundation of a permanent alliance in governing.

Thus the people would have a better idea of what is to be expected if the party or alliances of parties go on to win the election.

Indonesia’s complex tapestry of geography, ethnicity, religions and history is likely to have room for more than two national parties.

Malaysia and India have relatively permanent coalitions of parties representing different society groups, either governing or waiting in the wing as loyal oppositions.

There are also some studies that point out that having a combination of direct presidential elections and district legislative elections is the most stable system because party  discipline in weaker and possible to form temporary issue and geographical alliances.

A district system would reduce campaign costs, increase accountability and produce a more stable government. What are we waiting for?

The writer is a lecturer at School of Economics, University of Indonesia

Popular

RI, Australia strengthen partnership on taxing crypto assets

Analysis: Indonesia denies normalization with Israel to enter OECD

Citroen to produce electric cars in Indonesia