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.

Popular

Govt suspends Sam Altman’s biometric identity project over legal concerns

Decline in Indonesia’s press freedom alarming

Jakartans rush to join ‘orange troops’ amid job scarcity