TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Changing the electoral system once again?
Change Size
Festive election: Dressed in traditional Javanese attire, poll workers serve voters in Giwangan subdistrict in Yogyakarta in the April 2019 legislative election. The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) has sparked a controversy for demanding the reinstatement of the closed-list electoral system. (JP/Tarko Sudiarno)
D
uring its national meeting earlier this month, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) set an important agenda, which was to reinstate the closed-list electoral system in place of the current open-list proportional representation.
Many have responded to the ruling party’s move, which is said to have been driven by the many unforeseen consequences of the current system. To name a few, widespread vote-buying, clientelism and patronage that have characterized Indonesian politics are attributed partly to the electoral design the country has adopted in the last decade.
In retrospect, why has the open-list system become problematic and why does it need to be changed? To understand the logic of it, one should be mindful that such a system is putting a greater emphasis on voters’ discretion to select candidates. Unlike in the closed-list system, in which the selection of candidates is given exclusively to the party elite, the open system entails candidates relying more on their personal reputation, fame, clan or bloodline.
In the current system, what matters is individual appeal, while the significance of a party’s program and ideology diminishes. It could even be harmful for a female candidate to prioritize, for instance, her party’s Islamic credentials while in fact she is running in a non-Muslim majority electoral district.
Further consequence of these characteristics is the cultivation of personal votes prevailing in virtually every political campaign. Rather than promoting their programmatic visions or their distinctive parties’ platform, candidates are forced to take on a more personalized campaign approach.
In their pursuit for legislative seats, politicians will likely distribute material benefits such as cash or goods in exchange for votes. This practice used to be confined in 2009, when, for the first time, the open-list system was fully implemented.
But as time went by, voters learned that they could use their bargaining power more effectively by earning more benefits, and therefore, causing operational costs for campaigns to skyrocket.
