Dealing with dilemmas in future electoral system<\/p>\n
The legislature is expected to approve the bill on elections
\nnext week; a bill which will be judged essentially on how far it
\nrecognizes the people's sovereignty in accordance with the
\nConstitution. Political observer Ichlasul Amal of Gadjah Mada
\nUniversity in Yogyakarta talked to The Jakarta Post's Sri Wahyuni
\nabout the problems at hand.<\/p>\n
Question: What electoral system would truly guarantee the
\npeople's sovereignty?<\/p>\n
Answer: Full sovereignty would be difficult to achieve unless
\nwe adopted the direct electoral system. But, what we have is a
\nrepresentative democracy wherein the people's sovereignty is
\nchanneled through a representative. In such a system, political
\nparties are the only effective channels to do so.<\/p>\n
A direct electoral system, in which voters vote for
\nrepresentatives instead of for political parties, is believed to
\nrepresent the people's will more directly. But the supporting
\nparty would be less solid, as the representative's actions would
\nmainly concern the interests of those who elected him...<\/p>\n
The proportional electoral system is believed to be able to
\nmake political parties more solid. This is why a proportional
\nsystem is usually adopted. However, once a dispute occurs in the
\nparties' central executive boards, it tends to lead to the
\ncreation of new parties. As a result, new parties are mushrooming
\nconstantly, just like what we are experiencing now.<\/p>\n
Should the number of political parties be limited?<\/p>\n
The selection of political parties has to occur naturally. A
\ndirect electoral system can do this, because it moves people to a
\nparticular group. Voters tend to vote for candidates whose
\nparties are likely to win the election. That's how people are
\nnaturally consolidated into lesser groups, like in the U.S.<\/p>\n
What is the possibility of applying the direct system here?<\/p>\n
The difficulty lies in the uneven distribution of the
\npopulation in different provinces.<\/p>\n
Suppose that an electoral district has to be represented by a
\nseat in the legislature and a seat is equal to a particular
\nnumber of a population. Given the present condition, a seat for a
\npopulous district would cover a narrower area than that of the
\nless populous region. This is unfair. It can also cause over-
\nrepresentation.<\/p>\n
We can deal with this kind of problem by, for example,
\ntreating administrative districts differently from electoral
\nones. But this can also create unfairness; the value of a seat in
\na particular district can be different from that of another.<\/p>\n
Another way of dealing with the problem is by providing the
\nproportional system with regional representatives (DPD), in which
\neach of the provinces, regardless of its population, is allowed
\nto send representatives, like in the U.S. Senate.<\/p>\n
There has not yet been any agreement on the number of regional
\nrepresentatives, but this will make a more balanced composition
\nof representatives. Ideally, the number of DPD members should be
\nthe same as the number of DPR (House of Representatives) members.
\nUnfortunately, the law has restricted the number of DPD members;
\nthey should not exceed one-third that of the DPR.<\/p>\n
What is also of concern here is that there will be different
\ntasks between the representative and the legislative bodies;
\nmembers of DPD will not be allowed to attend particular sessions.
\n What is the best system for the present situation?<\/p>\n
The simplest, cheapest system is that of the closed
\nproportional system, in which people vote for a political party.
\nBut of course, then the representatives chosen by a party do not
\nalways feel they represent the voters.<\/p>\n
Even the party's central executive board often takes control
\nof them. The election of Sutiyoso as Jakarta governor is such a
\ncase, in which representatives were forced to elect him because
\ntheir parties' central executive board told them to.<\/p>\n
The open proportional, or open-list system, in which voters
\nvote for political parties as well as for desired candidates,
\nwould be more difficult for big parties with over 100 candidates.<\/p>\n
The greater the number of candidates we have, the more
\ncomplicated the counting process.<\/p>\n
Would restricting the number of candidates help?<\/p>\n
Theoretically, yes. But will the political parties be willing
\nto gamble on the possibility that they will lose votes if they
\nexceed the number needed to elect the listed candidates?<\/p>\n
Providing different voting cards for different regencies or
\nmunicipalities can also make the open proportional system
\nsimpler. A voter in Sleman regency (in Yogyakarta) could be given
\nthe card that lists only the candidates from Sleman.<\/p>\n
Given the short time left, my guess is that we will be using
\nthe system that we have used so far, the closed proportional
\nsystem. ... If the House resorts to voting (in deliberations on
\nthe election bill) major political parties such as PDI
\nPerjuangan, Golkar and the United Development Party (PPP) will
\nlikely vote for the closed proportional system. It's more
\nadvantageous for them, because they will still have control over
\nthe representatives.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the Law on Political Parties also stipulates that a
\nparty's central executive board has the right to recall its
\nrepresentatives. This contradicts the basic principle of the open
\nproportional system.<\/p>\n
But the closed proportional system has been widely criticized
\nfor its failure to result in qualified legislators.<\/p>\n
The electoral system has nothing to do with the decreasing
\nimage of legislators. If past elections resulted in unqualified
\nlegislators, it's more of a moral issue. If the system had
\ncontributed towards this, it's more likely this happened because
\nthe political party misused the system.<\/p>\n
Just look back to the 1955 elections. (Politicians) were
\nstrongly oriented in ideology; those who sought to topple someone
\nfrom a particular position did so mainly because of ideology, not
\nbecause of money.<\/p>\n
So you're saying that it's not the system that needs to be
\nchanged, but the moral quality of the elite?<\/p>\n
Yes. Now, they're considering adopting the open proportional
\nsystem to minimize the condition, while it is technically very
\ndifficult to apply. This will also influence the meaning of the
\nelection itself.<\/p>\n
It seems that no system is ideal for Indonesia.<\/p>\n
That's true. There are some 300 different electoral systems in
\nthe world. We have seen many so far, but we're focusing more on
\nthe system that Germany applies, which is a mixture of
\nproportional and direct systems.<\/p>\n
Do you think it's an ideal system?<\/p>\n
It needs a try. The direct system has never been tried in
\nIndonesia. I once proposed to hold a direct election step by
\nstep, starting from the village, district, and regental levels,
\nand on to the provincial level. The election would be held
\nregardless of the size of the population. The administrative
\ndistrict would be treated similarly to the electoral one. This
\nway, people will clearly know who represents their region.<\/p>\n
Less populous regions would have to be broken down further
\ninto more regencies or municipalities, to create a more
\nproportionate and balanced composition of representatives in the
\nHouse.<\/p>\n
The Gadjah Mada University also proposed once that the village
\nbe made the basic level for placing representatives in the House
\n(before the subsequent higher election levels). This would also
\ncreate a personal relationship between the voters and the elected
\nrepresentatives.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/dealing-with-dilemmas-in-future-electoral-system-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}