T

he political reform movement that began in 1998 has significantly transformed the democratic atmosphere in Indonesia through amendments to the 1945 Constitution. One of the fundamental changes relates to the electoral mechanism for regional leaders.

We used to have indirect elections where governors, mayors and regents were chosen by members of local legislative councils. A year after the enactment of the 2004 Law on Regional Administration, regional leaders were elected directly through a “one man, one vote” mechanism.

Six years after the law came into effect, however, many Indonesians are questioning whether direct election is still appropriate given the aims of democracy, since this system can also create economic, social and political burdens. Responding to this issue, the government recently proposed a bill on local elections, which intends to reinstate the old indirect election system. This issue has sparked debate not only among politicians, but also between government officials and academics.

Regarding the present electoral mechanism, the government has insisted that neither the candidates nor voters are politically ready to implement the direct elections mechanism. They found there have been many cases of election fraud in direct elections, which has affected the public’s view of democracy.

However, there is little empirical data to support such accusations. It is true that there has been election fraud, but none of 14 allegations of fraud related to gubernatorial elections in six provinces in 2010 were granted by the Constitutional Court. In other words, no significant electoral fraud characterized as structured, systematic and massive violations has occurred in any of the gubernatorial elections so far.

The government assumes that direct regional elections are prone to corruption as elected candidates will take advantage of any opportunity to regain any of their money spent during their campaigns. One of their ways to get this money back is apparently by misusing the regional budget.

Nonetheless, reviving an indirect election system will not guarantee a reduction of corruption among elected candidates. The reason why many local leaders today are convicted for graft is not just a factor of the direct election system, but because in the reform era Indonesia established a strong law enforcement institution called the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), which has been very effective in hunting down corrupt people, so essentially now we just seeing more of what was there already. The free press and a stronger civil society have also contributed significantly to the increasing number of corruption cases we see where local leaders are involved.

Moreover, it is easier for candidates in indirect elections to buy votes because they need only to pay dozens of legislative council members. In terms of the fight against corruption, changing the electoral system is not a good solution. It would be better to enforce a law that regulates and controls financial support for candidates.

The government also seeks to end direct gubernatorial elections to improve electoral budget efficiency. The government has noted that direct elections are too costly for just electing governors, who only serve as representatives of the central government at a regional level.

However, investing more money to develop our democracy will not have direct advantages instantly or within a short time frame. I believe that defending the values of democracy is neither cheap or easy, but the price we pay is worth it. To tackle budget problems, simultaneous elections for governors, regents and mayors will be more applicable in terms of time and budget efficiency as well as reducing negative socio-political repercussions.

In line with democratic principles, direct elections allow people to exercise their fundamental sovereignty as stipulated in Article 1 paragraph 2 of the 1945 Constitution. The direct election mechanism also enables independent candidates to run for office in local elections. In fact, there has been one governor and 21 mayors who were elected as independent candidates in the last three years. This opportunity is almost impossible if the regional leaders are elected by local legislative councils.

In a nutshell, it is too soon to say the direct election system has failed to create a better condition for the community, because Indonesia has only implemented the elite rotation mechanism for six years, which is a very short amount of time in which to make an evaluation, let alone form a conclusion.

Instilling a democracy cannot bear fruits instantly, but needs a long process. People should be given a chance to learn from their weaknesses in practicing direct elections. The government and House of Representative’s move to revive the old mechanism for regional elections, if approved, will be a setback for the consolidation of our democracy.

The writer is the executive secretary of the Expert Council of the Indonesian Law Graduates Association (ISHI).