JP/3/DISCO30

Election system must aim for inclusiveness, accountability

The acceptance of a more democratic electoral system by major parties Golkar and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), during the ongoing deliberation of the elections bill, must be observed with more caution, says Hadar Gumay of the Center for Electoral Reform (Cetro). He spoke to The Jakarta Post's Ati Nurbaiti on the issue.

Question: Following in the footsteps of the Golkar party, PDI Perjuangan has finally accepted the principle of the open-list electoral system, under which voters would choose individual legislative candidates for the House of Representatives instead of political parties. Is this a major progress?

Answer: Yes, but the development must be watched closely, because what they mean by the open-list system may differ from the current understanding.

What Golkar suggested is, in effect, not an open-list system: their condition is one seat for each township/regency. This would mean that the candidates from several towns/regencies would be contesting for only one seat, because we have many towns or regencies with populations far below the divider figure such as Sabang (in Aceh province in northern Sumatra), with a population of 20,000. Many other towns have populations of 20,000 to 100,000. (The divider figure is calculated by dividing the number of the local population by the number of the national population, then multiplying this by the total of 550 seats at the House of Representatives.)

We estimate that a total of 281 townships and regencies would have only one seat under this system, which, in effect, is thus a district system that only benefits large parties like Golkar, who have far-reaching networks.

This is not an open-list, or a directly proportional, system because the result is not proportional. The current public demand is that we have alternative voices and inclusiveness. Under the system suggested by Golkar, small, marginal parties would be wiped out.

An election area (for candidates of the House of Representatives) would need at least five to 10 seats. More than 10 would make calculations more difficult.

What about the new PDI Perjuangan decision to take up an open- list system?

Their decision is the opposite of Golkar; they want election areas based on provinces. Our provinces have such varied sizes of population, with big provinces in Java or in developed areas outside Java, so in a dense province like East Java, we would end up having to choose one out of up to 80 candidates.

PDI Perjuangan says we can either choose a candidate or a political party. Of course, people would choose a party rather than choosing one of 80 candidates, and again you don't have a directly proportional system which aims to have candidates who are close or accountable to voters.

For this transitional political period in Indonesia, which system would be the best?

The government's concept of a directly proportional system (as mentioned in the bill), in which an election area is a province or parts of provinces. So smaller provinces like Bengkulu, Bangka Belitung and Gorontalo should not be divided again because they would get four to five seats, which is enough.

The larger provinces would get more than 10 seats. Jakarta (with its population of 10 million) would get an estimated 21 seats, so we would propose that it be divided into South Jakarta, East Jakarta, and a combined area consisting Central, North and West Jakarta. It's hard for people to identify with so many legislators (from one area).

The deliberation of the election bill is still going on. Can you estimate where it is heading, given the current stance of the major parties?

It seems the major parties are still on their own terms, on one extreme or the other. As a way out, the government might propose an open-list system for one level only, either for the House of Representatives or for the provincial legislative council.

What would be the implications of either choice?

Citizens would not have full sovereignty over their representatives, and again it is the elite of the political parties who will be able to exert control over who will be their legislators. But at least there would be an opportunity of directly electing representatives at one level.

What is Cetro's proposal?

That each level of the elections is conducted using the open- list or directly proportional method, but the elections must be simplified. For instance, parties should not be required to propose twice the number of necessary candidates as is currently being suggested by the government.

So, we would stick to the government's version of an open-list system, but one that is simplified, and retain the principles of proportional and direct elections.

Various organizations have conducted election simulations in some provinces, and the system is feasible.

Legislators have pointed to a long list of problems with the bill. What if the bill is not ready for the elections in 2004?

The deadline to pass the election law was six months ago; therefore, they must finish by Feb. 11 as promised, and they are showing some more resolve these days. The political parties must not keep pushing for their own interests to render legislators unable to make a decision.

If elections are delayed again for another five years, it would be a very grim prospect.