On the face of it, the proposition almost seems like an exercise in futility, given the clear advantage that presumptive election winner Prabowo Subianto gained over his two rivals in the Feb. 14 presidential race, based on the quick count results by reputable survey agencies.

Political parties seeking an inquiry may be faced with an uphill battle to find support and pass the motion through a House plenary. But they should make the effort anyway.

If there was ever a perfect time for our elected politicians to exercise a right exclusively afforded to them, that time is now; not to overturn the election results, but to demand accountability for what one observer has dubbed the worst election ever in terms of integrity in the post-Soeharto era.

Ganjar Pranowo and Anies Baswedan, the apparently unsuccessful candidates, are challenging the election outcome through the Elections Supervisory Body (Bawaslu) and are expected to file an appeal with the Constitutional Court in an attempt to initiate a new vote.

Meanwhile, a House inquiry, which Ganjar first suggested and which falls under the jurisdiction of the political parties represented in the House, is likely to investigate the ethical violations allegedly committed by those involved in organizing the elections, including the General Elections Commission (KPU), Bawaslu, the Constitutional Court and the President.

Both the KPU and the top court have faced consequences for circumventing the previous 40-year minimum age requirement for presidential candidates, which allowed President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s son Gibran Rakabuming Raka, 36, to run as a vice presidential candidate.

However, many people want to gloss over the series of incidents of ethical misconduct leading up to the polls. It is one step forward, two steps back for the Jokowi administration, which led a development drive for nearly a decade that had otherwise boosted Indonesia’s economic standing.

At the very least, the prospect of setting up a House inquiry, in addition to the appeals to the election bodies and the Constitutional Court, should allay concerns about bad governance and restore some credibility to the political process, as well as our faith in democracy.

As in any democracy, ensuring good governance through the effective exercise of legal, political and constitutional rights is crucial for upholding the rule of law and safeguarding the rights of its citizens.

The right to inquiry empowers House lawmakers to investigate issues of public concern, hold government officials accountable for their actions and propose any necessary reforms.

It serves as a check on executive power, ensuring that government agencies operate within the bounds of the law and serve the public interest.

With the benefit of hindsight, it has become obvious that Jokowi was never that invested in the need to uphold democratic principles, perhaps because people seemed to be content with all the infrastructure he built. For this alone he should be compelled to shoulder some responsibility if any of the allegations are proven to be true.

More importantly, however, the main point of an inquiry is to exhaust all avenues afforded to us in a democracy, lest they be taken away. Political agency is important to promote, regardless of the end result.

Some might believe that a political process is no way to sort out a legal dispute, but we need only look to the 2009 Bank Century bailout inquiry as a precedent for how an inquiry helped turn the tide in a high-profile legal case.

Coincidentally, the probe was pushed through after then president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono won reelection in the last three-way presidential race to be held before 2024, with majority control of the legislature to boot.

The key to accountability, as it turns out, is sustained public pressure.

In Jokowi’s case, even though he still commands high approval ratings, there was nonetheless limited public backing for him to seek a third presidential term.

An inquiry would merely seek to confirm whether that hesitancy was warranted.