JP/3/DISCO30

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.