O

n its front-page article in Sept. 17, 2004, the Wall Street Journal described the 2004 Indonesian elections as representative of a flourishing democracy. It was fitting given the voter turnout of over 80 percent, which made it the largest one-day election in world history.

However, if the recent gubernatorial elections in North Sumatra and West Java are any indication, we have a problem. Voter turnout rates in both elections were relatively low, at less than 50 percent in North Sumatra and 63 percent in West Java.

These alarmingly low voter turnouts are not a surprise as the public has little trust in political parties. Various surveys, including from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) indicate that the public's confidence in political parties' abilities to perform their responsibilities is at low to mid 20s.

The public has lost confidence not only in political parties, but also the government and leaders. The 2013 Edelman Trust Barometer found that only 47 percent of people in their survey had confidence in the government. Worse, when asked whether they could trust government leaders to 'solve social or societal issues', it hit bottom at 15 percent.

To be sure, a 'healthy' distrust or at least skepticism toward the powerful is an inherent part of any democracy. This skepticism is the driving factor that provides opportunities for citizens to monitor the activities of people and institutions they supposedly trust. This monitoring can function as a democratic safeguard.

However, trust in government and the political system is a mainstay of democracy. Confucius once said that governments needed weapons, food and trust, but if there was one thing that the government must have, it was trust. The legitimacy of political and administrative institutions and actors vital to the political process is based largely on trust. Under indirect democracy, people delegate their sovereignty to these institutions and actors, trusting that this mandate will be handled responsibly.

Popular lack of trust in our government and political system may be based on a number of reasons. One is related to the classic overblown campaign promises, where parties and national leaders fail to fulfill their promises to improve public welfare.

Another explanation is due to the lack of integrity plaguing the government and political actors. The Edelman report found 71 percent of the respondents distrust our government due to corruption and fraud.

So, can next year's general election restore the public's faith in our government and political system? The answer may lie in who the political parties select as their legislative candidates. With about 80 percent of the respondents in a poll conducted by Indonesia Network Elections Survey (INES) last month not trusting the current political parties' candidates, the public has already sent a signal.

Unfortunately, looking at the candidates submitted by the established political parties to the General Elections Commission (KPU), they seem to repeat past mistakes, recycling the same faces and relying on celebrities to get votes. As the KPU allows the political parties to make changes to their lists, we can only hope they will use the opportunity to pick fresh candidates who are competent and committed to anticorruption.

The highly expensive election system has also aggravated the problem. For the legislative election alone, if each candidate needs Rp 1.5 billion (US$154,600) on average, the 6,576 candidates will collectively spend close to Rp 10 trillion. This forces political parties to increasingly focus on pursuing the funds to contest elections through all means, including corruption. It also makes it harder for legislative candidates not to engage in vote buying since they face simultaneous competition both from fellow party members and other parties' candidates.

The political parties are not all to blame. Voters should also exercise a new attitude in next year's election by forcefully rejecting petty transactional politics, receiving money for votes.

Once an elected legislative member believes that people's votes are essentially bought, he or she has less incentive to be responsible to his or her constituents. Consequently, voters have little legitimacy to complain about the competency of their representatives. After all, how do we expect them to maintain high standards if we elected them through bribery, albeit small?

The writer is associate professor of economics at Azusa Pacific University, California, and a member of board of experts at the National Democratic Party. The views expressed are personal.