Direct elections?<\/p>\n
With the office of the President constantly beset by problems,
\nthe possibility of the people electing their president through
\ndirect elections instead of through their representatives in the
\nPeople's Consultative Assembly (MPR), as is currently the case,
\nis once again becoming a public issue. The idea seems to be that
\nthe current problems concerning the presidency and the government
\nresult from a lack of legitimacy, since even though the President
\nwas democratically elected, he was elected not on the basis of
\nany electoral majority, but by political party maneuverings in
\nthe MPR.<\/p>\n
In the meantime, one may recall that when the subject of
\ndirect presidential elections was first publicly raised some time
\nago -- by, among others, then president B.J. Habibie, -- it was
\nreceived by the public as little more than a kind of interesting
\nmental exercise in a newly rediscovered climate of democracy. The
\nConstitution, after all, prescribes that the president and vice
\npresident be elected by the MPR for a term of five years. In the
\ncase of the president being incapacitated through illness or
\nbeing otherwise indisposed, his or her position is taken over by
\nthe vice president. The MPR, thus, functions as a kind of
\nelectoral college, as is known in the U.S. and other countries
\nthroughout the world.<\/p>\n
Obviously, replacing the current system of electing a
\npresident and vice president through the MPR requires amending
\nthe Constitution, which, at that time, few people were ready to
\ndo. Times, though, continue to change, and with the country's
\npolitical elite continuing to maneuver for power, the
\nvulnerability of the office of the president in this kind of
\npower play is becoming increasingly clear. Hence, the renewed
\ninterest in the possibility of holding direct presidential
\nelections.<\/p>\n
On the one hand, those who are for direct elections argue that
\nhaving the president elected directly by the people is not only
\nmore democratic, but it gives the office of the presidency -- and
\nalso that of the vice presidency -- greater legitimacy and brings
\nmaneuvering by political parties in the national legislatures to
\na minimum.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, those who oppose such a scenario argue that
\nthe people are not ready for direct elections and must be given
\ntime to "mature". Under current circumstances, so the argument
\ngoes, direct presidential and vice presidential elections would
\nbenefit leaders who have charisma, possibly disregarding the
\nfactor of capability. It may be recalled that the "public
\ndebates" on television talk shows before the general election
\nlast year had little effect, if any at all, on the people's
\nchoice.<\/p>\n
With regard to this kind of pessimism, it may be useful to
\npoint out that the direct election of leaders by the people is
\nnot exactly new to Indonesians. At village level, people have, as
\nlong as memory can recall, elected their village heads directly,
\nwith few problems. To elevate such village elections to national
\nlevel, however, takes a good deal of planning and preparation.<\/p>\n
In brief, everything considered, direct elections --
\nshortcomings and all -- would seem to guarantee the results that
\nare most acceptable to all. By ensuring greater legitimacy, at
\nleast it may prevent the kind of continuous disarray that has
\nplagued the current administration ever since its inception and,
\nthereby, help this nation on its way to greater democracy and
\nprosperity.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/direct-elections-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}