Current electoral system seen most suitable
Current electoral system seen most suitable
DEPOK, West Java (JP): Amidst debates on electoral reforms, academics agreed yesterday that the proportional representation system is still the most appropriate one for Indonesia.
Political observers Miriam Budiardjo, Bintan Saragih and Iwan Sujatmiko of the University of Indonesia also agreed that, in the present climate, proportional representation should be retained. They also advised against the adoption of a first-past-the-post system, otherwise known as the district system.
Speaking in a discussion on Indonesian society and general elections, Iwan said the main criterion in judging an electoral system is the principle of electoral justice.
"This means that the number of votes received by a participant must be reflected in the number of seats," Iwan said.
Under the current proportional representation system, voters choose one of the three political parties in the general election - Golkar, the United Development Party (PPP) or the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI).
There have been debates among politicians and intellectuals whether the electoral system should be changed into one in which voters directly elect the parliamentarians who will represent them.
Officials in Golkar, which has won all of the five general elections held under President Soeharto, have said that the district system would make Golkar's majority almost absolute because they would win almost all, if not every, district.
Under the current system, legislators are selected from numbered lists compiled by the political parties; candidates are elected from the highest rank downwards.
Those who vote for a certain political party, therefore have no say over which candidates represent them in the legislative bodies.
Proponents of the district system have claimed that its adoption would allow voters to directly select their representatives, thus forcing legislators to be more responsive to the wishes of their constituents.
Miriam and her colleagues, however, contend that the district system often poorly reflects the choice of the electorate.
An example given was that of the 1987 British election. The Conservative Party won 42.3 percent of the popular votes but obtained 57.7 percent of the parliamentary seats, while the SDP- Liberal alliance who got 22.6 percent of the votes only acquired 3.4 percent of total parliamentary seats.
In comparison, the 1987 general elections here were translated into a more accurate representation, Miriam said.
Golkar collected 73.7 percent of votes and 74.7 percent of seats at the legislative body, the PPP got 16 percent of votes and 15.3 percent of seats, while the PDI who won 10.8 percent of the votes got 10 percent of the seats in the legislative body.
Bintan Saragih said the district system fails to take into consideration smaller groups, particularly if their members are spread throughout several districts.
Miriam Budiardjo also noted that under the proportional representation system "the people's sense of justice is satisfied since all social-political organizations, including the small ones, are represented."
While supporting the validity of proportional representation, the academics also acknowledged the need for adjustments to allow voters the chance to directly choose its representatives.
Miriam said that as well as allocating too much power to the party leadership because of the complete control it has over the choice of candidates, and their relative ranking on the list, the current variant of proportional representation in Indonesia also "alienates" the legislator from the voter.
One of the alternatives to overcome this weakness is to allow voters to choose the party or the candidate they support as it was done during Indonesia's first election in 1955.
"The opportunity to directly choose their representative will make the system more democratic. In Indonesia's case there needs to be a change from the current electoral system to a more open listed proportional representation," said Iwan Sujatmiko.(mds)