Civil Coalition: Ideally, Election Law Revision Completed by August 2026

The Civil Society Coalition for the Codification of the Election Law assesses that discussions on revising Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections must be conducted promptly as the selection stages for election organisers approach in mid-2026.

Kahfi Adlan Hafiz, a representative of the coalition and researcher at the Centre for Elections and Democracy (Perludem), stated that ideally, the revision of the Election Law should be completed no later than August 2026. The aim is to ensure regulatory preparedness before the election organiser selection stages begin.

According to him, delays in completing the revision would impact the legal system’s readiness to regulate the selection process. “From an election management perspective, regulatory certainty is a primary prerequisite for effective and credible organisation,” he said while reading the coalition’s statement online on Monday, 4 May 2026.

He explained that the election organiser selection stages begin with the formation of a selection team. That team plays a role in determining the quality of candidates to be selected. For him, this process is an initial stage that greatly determines the direction and quality of the election organiser institutions.

“If the selection process is not supported by updated regulations, the potential for deviations and procedural weaknesses will be even greater,” he said.

Previous experiences show that the quality of election organisers still faces various problems rooted in an unintegrity selection design. This condition emphasises that the selection stage must be positioned as an integral part of the election organisation cycle.

According to him, the revision of the Election Law must accommodate fundamental improvements in the selection mechanism to ensure the selection of professional and independent organisers. “Without this step, the quality of electoral democracy will be difficult to improve,” he stated.

The Civil Society Coalition for the Codification of Elections previously issued a demand to the DPR and the Government to immediately discuss the revision of the Election Law on 9 April 2026 through a press conference. This demand was based on a comprehensive evaluation of previous election organisations that revealed various structural problems in electoral regulatory design.

However, Kahfi said the DPR responded to the demand by stating that the discussion of the Election Law revision would not be rushed. Yet, the revision of the Election Law has been included in the priority national legislation programme (Prolegnas) since 2025.

Commission II of the DPR has indeed invited academics, practitioners, and civil society organisations in a General Hearing Meeting (RDPU) to provide evaluation notes and recommendations on the revision of the Election Law. The aim is to facilitate meaningful participation.

However, ideally, the RDPU should run alongside the formal discussion of the Election Law revision in the DPR. Various evaluation notes and recommendations submitted by invited parties by Commission II should be incorporated into the list of problem inventory documents or academic manuscripts or drafts of articles in the Election Law.

“But to this day, the public still does not know whether Commission II of the DPR already has DIM documents or draft academic manuscripts and the Election Law draft,” he said.

The absence of formal discussions on the Election Law revision indicates that the DPR is not heeding public demands. In a democratic system, said Kahfi, the DPR should carry out its representation function by absorbing and following up on societal aspirations as part of the legislative process.

However, said Kahfi, the facts show that these public demands are not responded to with concrete steps. This raises questions about the DPR’s accountability in carrying out its constitutional mandate.

The coalition also sees the DPR showing a tendency to delay discussions on the Election Law revision without adequate justification. Meanwhile, legislative delays have the potential to create legal uncertainty that impacts various aspects of election organisation.

“As a result, opportunities for substantive improvements in the election system become increasingly limited,” he said.

The coalition assesses that using Law No. 7 of 2017 without revision will not produce significant changes in the quality of future elections. The DPR is also assessed to have bypassed the constitution by ignoring Constitutional Court decisions that require regulatory adjustments.

Based on the official Constitutional Court website, since its promulgation, there have been 182 material reviews of Law 7/2017, with 21 material reviews granted. One concrete consequence of the material reviews granted by the Constitutional Court is regulatory adjustments that adopt the Constitutional Court decisions.

“From the perspective of constitutional supremacy, ignoring Constitutional Court decisions constitutes a serious violation of the rule of law principle,” he said.

The Civil Society Coalition for the Codification of the Election Law urges the DPR and the President to immediately start and complete the discussion of the Election Law revision within a measured timeframe. The revision discussion must be made a priority in the national legislation programme to guarantee legal certainty before the election organiser selection stages begin.

The coalition also calls on all political parties in parliament to demonstrate commitment to democratic reform. Political parties should no longer delay discussions on the Election Law revision and ensure that regulatory changes are not based on short-term electoral interests.

“The DPR and the President to ensure that the Election Law revision process is carried out through constitutional, transparent, and accountable legislative mechanisms, and to guarantee meaningful public participation in every stage of the discussion,” he said.

This coalition consists of 15 organisations, including Perludem, Network for Democracy and Electoral Integrity (Netgrit), Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), and the Centre for Political Studies at the University.