Electoral system must be inclusive, fair: Cetro<\/p>\n
The acceptance of a more democratic electoral system by major
\nparties Golkar and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle
\n(PDI Perjuangan), during the ongoing deliberation of the
\nelections bill, must be observed with more caution, says Hadar N.
\nGumay of the Center for Electoral Reform (Cetro). He spoke to The
\nJakarta Post's Ati Nurbaiti on the issue.<\/p>\n
Question: Following in the footsteps of the Golkar party, PDI
\nPerjuangan has finally accepted the principle of the open-list
\nelectoral system, under which voters would choose individual
\nlegislative candidates for the House of Representatives instead
\nof political parties. Is this a major progress?
\nAnswer: Yes, but the development must be watched closely, because
\nwhat they mean by the open-list system may differ from the
\ncurrent understanding.<\/p>\n
What Golkar suggested is, in effect, not an open-list system:
\ntheir condition is one seat for each township\/regency. This would
\nmean that the candidates from several towns\/regencies would be
\ncontesting for only one seat, because we have many towns or
\nregencies with populations far below the divider figure such as
\nSabang (in Aceh province in northern Sumatra), with a population
\nof 20,000. Many other towns have populations of 20,000 to
\n100,000. (The divider figure is calculated by dividing the number
\nof the local population by the number of the national population,
\nthen multiplying this by the total of 550 seats at the House of
\nRepresentatives.)<\/p>\n
We estimate that a total of 281 townships and regencies would
\nhave only one seat under this system, which, in effect, is thus a
\ndistrict system that only benefits large parties like Golkar, who
\nhave far-reaching networks.<\/p>\n
This is not an open-list, or a directly proportional, system
\nbecause the result is not proportional. The current public demand
\nis that we have alternative voices and inclusiveness. Under the
\nsystem suggested by Golkar, small, marginal parties would be
\nwiped out.<\/p>\n
An election area (for candidates of the House of
\nRepresentatives) would need at least five to 10 seats. More than
\n10 would make calculations more difficult.<\/p>\n
What about the new PDI Perjuangan decision to take up an open-
\nlist system?<\/p>\n
Their decision is the opposite of Golkar; they want election
\nareas based on provinces. Our provinces have such varied sizes of
\npopulation, with big provinces in Java or in developed areas
\noutside Java, so in a dense province like East Java, we would end
\nup having to choose one out of up to 80 candidates.<\/p>\n
PDI Perjuangan says we can either choose a candidate or a
\npolitical party. Of course, people would choose a party rather
\nthan choosing one of 80 candidates, and again you don't have a
\ndirectly proportional system which aims to have candidates who
\nare close or accountable to voters.<\/p>\n
For this transitional political period in Indonesia, which
\nsystem would be the best?<\/p>\n
The government's concept of a directly proportional system (as
\nmentioned in the bill), in which an election area is a province
\nor parts of provinces. So smaller provinces like Bengkulu, Bangka
\nBelitung and Gorontalo should not be divided again because they
\nwould get four to five seats, which is enough.<\/p>\n
The larger provinces would get more than 10 seats. Jakarta
\n(with its population of 10 million) would get an estimated 21
\nseats, so we would propose that it be divided into South Jakarta,
\nEast Jakarta, and a combined area consisting Central, North and
\nWest Jakarta. It's hard for people to identify with so many
\nlegislators (from one area).<\/p>\n
The deliberation of the election bill is still going on. Can
\nyou estimate where it is heading, given the current stance of the
\nmajor parties?<\/p>\n
It seems the major parties are still on their own terms, on
\none extreme or the other. As a way out, the government might
\npropose an open-list system for one level only, either for the
\nHouse of Representatives or for the provincial legislative
\ncouncil.<\/p>\n
What would be the implications of either choice?<\/p>\n
Citizens would not have full sovereignty over their
\nrepresentatives, and again it is the elite of the political
\nparties who will be able to exert control over who will be their
\nlegislators. But at least there would be an opportunity of
\ndirectly electing representatives at one level.<\/p>\n
What is Cetro's proposal?<\/p>\n
That each level of the elections is conducted using the open-
\nlist or directly proportional method, but the elections must be
\nsimplified. For instance, parties should not be required to
\npropose twice the number of necessary candidates as is currently
\nbeing suggested by the government.<\/p>\n
So, we would stick to the government's version of an open-list
\nsystem, but one that is simplified, and retain the principles of
\nproportional and direct elections.<\/p>\n
Various organizations have conducted election simulations in
\nsome provinces, and the system is feasible.<\/p>\n
Legislators have pointed to a long list of problems with the
\nbill. What if the bill is not ready for the elections in 2004?<\/p>\n
The deadline to pass the election law was six months ago;
\ntherefore, they must finish by Feb. 11 as promised, and they are
\nshowing some more resolve these days. The political parties must
\nnot keep pushing for their own interests to render legislators
\nunable to make a decision.<\/p>\n
If elections are delayed again for another five years, it
\nwould be a very grim prospect.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/electoral-system-must-be-inclusive-fair-cetro-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}