Yet these elections also generated debate about whether Indonesia’s electoral system needs reforms. The immediate spark were the deaths of over 600 volunteers who organized the voting in polling stations.

Most of them died of exhaustion owing to the complex challenge of overseeing the simultaneous elections. This sparked discussion about whether these elections should be held simultaneously and whether electronic voting should be implemented.

There is a long history of tinkering with Indonesia’s electoral system. To name just a few of the most important reforms: the adoption of direct elections for president in 2004 and regional heads in 2005, the shift from an open to a closed list as a manner of allocating legislative seats in 2009 and the gradual raising of the threshold for a party to gain a legislative seat to currently 4 percent.

Regular reforms are not necessarily a bad thing: it makes sense to learn from experience, particularly for a new democracy like Indonesia’s. Yet these reform attempts have left an important problem off the agenda.

So far these reforms have not focused on reducing the costs of election campaigns. They focused on other goals, such as curtailing the number of parties. As a result, these reforms have actually increased the costs of election campaigns.

Over the last six years I studied Indonesia’s elections for a book that I recently published together with Edward Aspinall, entitled Democracy for Sale: Elections, Clientelism and the State in Indonesia.

Popular

Stocks in Asia rise, yen wobbles after volatile start to week

In Numbers: How women fare in Indonesia

Indonesia may offer dual citizenship to attract overseas workers, minister says