Direct elections?

Direct elections?

With the office of the President constantly beset by problems,
the possibility of the people electing their president through
direct elections instead of through their representatives in the
People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), as is currently the case,
is once again becoming a public issue. The idea seems to be that
the current problems concerning the presidency and the government
result from a lack of legitimacy, since even though the President
was democratically elected, he was elected not on the basis of
any electoral majority, but by political party maneuverings in
the MPR.

In the meantime, one may recall that when the subject of
direct presidential elections was first publicly raised some time
ago -- by, among others, then president B.J. Habibie, -- it was
received by the public as little more than a kind of interesting
mental exercise in a newly rediscovered climate of democracy. The
Constitution, after all, prescribes that the president and vice
president be elected by the MPR for a term of five years. In the
case of the president being incapacitated through illness or
being otherwise indisposed, his or her position is taken over by
the vice president. The MPR, thus, functions as a kind of
electoral college, as is known in the U.S. and other countries
throughout the world.

Obviously, replacing the current system of electing a
president and vice president through the MPR requires amending
the Constitution, which, at that time, few people were ready to
do. Times, though, continue to change, and with the country's
political elite continuing to maneuver for power, the
vulnerability of the office of the president in this kind of
power play is becoming increasingly clear. Hence, the renewed
interest in the possibility of holding direct presidential
elections.

On the one hand, those who are for direct elections argue that
having the president elected directly by the people is not only
more democratic, but it gives the office of the presidency -- and
also that of the vice presidency -- greater legitimacy and brings
maneuvering by political parties in the national legislatures to
a minimum.

On the other hand, those who oppose such a scenario argue that
the people are not ready for direct elections and must be given
time to "mature". Under current circumstances, so the argument
goes, direct presidential and vice presidential elections would
benefit leaders who have charisma, possibly disregarding the
factor of capability. It may be recalled that the "public
debates" on television talk shows before the general election
last year had little effect, if any at all, on the people's
choice.

With regard to this kind of pessimism, it may be useful to
point out that the direct election of leaders by the people is
not exactly new to Indonesians. At village level, people have, as
long as memory can recall, elected their village heads directly,
with few problems. To elevate such village elections to national
level, however, takes a good deal of planning and preparation.

In brief, everything considered, direct elections --
shortcomings and all -- would seem to guarantee the results that
are most acceptable to all. By ensuring greater legitimacy, at
least it may prevent the kind of continuous disarray that has
plagued the current administration ever since its inception and,
thereby, help this nation on its way to greater democracy and
prosperity.