Dealing with dilemmas in future electoral system

The legislature is expected to approve the bill on elections next week; a bill which will be judged essentially on how far it recognizes the people's sovereignty in accordance with the Constitution. Political observer Ichlasul Amal of Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta talked to The Jakarta Post's Sri Wahyuni about the problems at hand.

Question: What electoral system would truly guarantee the people's sovereignty?

Answer: Full sovereignty would be difficult to achieve unless we adopted the direct electoral system. But, what we have is a representative democracy wherein the people's sovereignty is channeled through a representative. In such a system, political parties are the only effective channels to do so.

A direct electoral system, in which voters vote for representatives instead of for political parties, is believed to represent the people's will more directly. But the supporting party would be less solid, as the representative's actions would mainly concern the interests of those who elected him...

The proportional electoral system is believed to be able to make political parties more solid. This is why a proportional system is usually adopted. However, once a dispute occurs in the parties' central executive boards, it tends to lead to the creation of new parties. As a result, new parties are mushrooming constantly, just like what we are experiencing now.

Should the number of political parties be limited?

The selection of political parties has to occur naturally. A direct electoral system can do this, because it moves people to a particular group. Voters tend to vote for candidates whose parties are likely to win the election. That's how people are naturally consolidated into lesser groups, like in the U.S.

What is the possibility of applying the direct system here?

The difficulty lies in the uneven distribution of the population in different provinces.

Suppose that an electoral district has to be represented by a seat in the legislature and a seat is equal to a particular number of a population. Given the present condition, a seat for a populous district would cover a narrower area than that of the less populous region. This is unfair. It can also cause over- representation.

We can deal with this kind of problem by, for example, treating administrative districts differently from electoral ones. But this can also create unfairness; the value of a seat in a particular district can be different from that of another.

Another way of dealing with the problem is by providing the proportional system with regional representatives (DPD), in which each of the provinces, regardless of its population, is allowed to send representatives, like in the U.S. Senate.

There has not yet been any agreement on the number of regional representatives, but this will make a more balanced composition of representatives. Ideally, the number of DPD members should be the same as the number of DPR (House of Representatives) members. Unfortunately, the law has restricted the number of DPD members; they should not exceed one-third that of the DPR.

What is also of concern here is that there will be different tasks between the representative and the legislative bodies; members of DPD will not be allowed to attend particular sessions. What is the best system for the present situation?

The simplest, cheapest system is that of the closed proportional system, in which people vote for a political party. But of course, then the representatives chosen by a party do not always feel they represent the voters.

Even the party's central executive board often takes control of them. The election of Sutiyoso as Jakarta governor is such a case, in which representatives were forced to elect him because their parties' central executive board told them to.

The open proportional, or open-list system, in which voters vote for political parties as well as for desired candidates, would be more difficult for big parties with over 100 candidates.

The greater the number of candidates we have, the more complicated the counting process.

Would restricting the number of candidates help?

Theoretically, yes. But will the political parties be willing to gamble on the possibility that they will lose votes if they exceed the number needed to elect the listed candidates?

Providing different voting cards for different regencies or municipalities can also make the open proportional system simpler. A voter in Sleman regency (in Yogyakarta) could be given the card that lists only the candidates from Sleman.

Given the short time left, my guess is that we will be using the system that we have used so far, the closed proportional system. ... If the House resorts to voting (in deliberations on the election bill) major political parties such as PDI Perjuangan, Golkar and the United Development Party (PPP) will likely vote for the closed proportional system. It's more advantageous for them, because they will still have control over the representatives.

Moreover, the Law on Political Parties also stipulates that a party's central executive board has the right to recall its representatives. This contradicts the basic principle of the open proportional system.

But the closed proportional system has been widely criticized for its failure to result in qualified legislators.

The electoral system has nothing to do with the decreasing image of legislators. If past elections resulted in unqualified legislators, it's more of a moral issue. If the system had contributed towards this, it's more likely this happened because the political party misused the system.

Just look back to the 1955 elections. (Politicians) were strongly oriented in ideology; those who sought to topple someone from a particular position did so mainly because of ideology, not because of money.

So you're saying that it's not the system that needs to be changed, but the moral quality of the elite?

Yes. Now, they're considering adopting the open proportional system to minimize the condition, while it is technically very difficult to apply. This will also influence the meaning of the election itself.

It seems that no system is ideal for Indonesia.

That's true. There are some 300 different electoral systems in the world. We have seen many so far, but we're focusing more on the system that Germany applies, which is a mixture of proportional and direct systems.

Do you think it's an ideal system?

It needs a try. The direct system has never been tried in Indonesia. I once proposed to hold a direct election step by step, starting from the village, district, and regental levels, and on to the provincial level. The election would be held regardless of the size of the population. The administrative district would be treated similarly to the electoral one. This way, people will clearly know who represents their region.

Less populous regions would have to be broken down further into more regencies or municipalities, to create a more proportionate and balanced composition of representatives in the House.

The Gadjah Mada University also proposed once that the village be made the basic level for placing representatives in the House (before the subsequent higher election levels). This would also create a personal relationship between the voters and the elected representatives.