'Mixed' electoral system an option

'Mixed' electoral system an option

By Ben Reilly

JAKARTA (JP): One of the most significant consequences of
former president Soeharto's departure from office is the
unprecedented opportunity for reform of Indonesia's political
institutions.

President B.J. Habibie's administration has placed a priority
on political reform. He has appointed a team of experts within
the Ministry of Home Affairs, headed by Ryaas Rasyid, to produce
new laws on key aspects of the country's political system, such
as political parties, parliaments, elections, and regional
autonomy.

Of these, drafting of the new electoral law is the most
advanced and is likely to have the most impact on Indonesian
politics.

Most commentary in recent months has focussed on the need to
produce new laws quickly so that elections can be held as soon as
possible. This is understandable, given the turbulent political
changes of recent months. More attention, however, needs to be
given to the crucial details of how different election laws can
dramatically influence the way politics is conducted, and how
important it to get these laws right from the start.

The choice of electoral systems is possibly the most important
institutional decision that influences the nature of politics in
a democracy.

Indonesia's current electoral system clearly betrays its
colonial origins. Closely related to the electoral system used in
the Netherlands, it elects members by proportional representation
from each province, with electors choosing between parties rather
than candidates.

There is no system of electoral districts, and thus no local-
level representation. Candidates are more dependent on their
standing with their party leaders for their electoral success
than they are on their record in the eyes of voters.

While this system works well in the small countries of western
Europe, it appears increasingly out of step with the real needs
of modern Indonesia.

The new electoral system proposed by Ryass' team dramatically
changes this system. Instead of members being elected on a
provincial basis, the proposed new system creates 420 separate
electoral districts, each of which will elect its own members to
the house of Representatives.

In contrast to the distant connection between the electorate
and politicians under current arrangements, this new system will
place a premium on the relationship between a distinct geographic
area and its elected representative.

To ensure that dispersed interests are not overlooked, a
further 75 seats will continue to be elected on a proportional
basis from a national party list. Finally, under the proposed
model, 55 seats will continue to be reserved for members of the
military.

What are the effects of this new system likely to be? Firstly,
the move to individual electoral districts should dramatically
increase levels of accountability of politicians to the
electorate. Members will have to service the needs of their local
districts and not just stay on good terms with their party
leaders.

Political issues will become more focussed on local concerns
than matters of national ideology, and thus probably more
reflective of the real interests of most ordinary voters.

Legislators who fail to address the interests of local
communities will find themselves voted out of office. In general,
politicians will have to work much harder for their votes than
they do now, and be much more responsive to the needs of voters.

Second, the proposed new system will place much more emphasis
on electors being represented by one of their own. The current
situation where Javanese generals can purportedly represent the
voters of East Timor or Irian Jaya will become a thing of the
past.

The House will itself become much more representative:
districts in West Sumatra are likely to elect local West
Sumatrans, Sulawesi to elect Sulawesians and so on. The elected
House will be much more reflective of Indonesia's regional
diversity than is the case at the moment.

This will itself foster much greater identification of the
people with their elected representatives than is the case at the
moment, thus helping mightily in the consolidation of democracy.

Such a system does, however, present a danger that localism
could become predominant, thus overriding all other issues and
turning each election campaign into 420 separate contests.

To counter this possibility, the proposed new law requires
that before a party can stand a candidate in an electorate, it
must have established a branch network in more than half of the
27 provinces, and must also be able to demonstrate significant
public support.

This is intended to stop the flowering of purely local or
single-issue parties, and to minimize the fragmentation of
parties that was evidenced during Indonesia's last free elections
in the 1950s. It should also mean that parties will have to
promote broad national issues, rather than becoming prisoner to
the specific claims of local regional or ethnic groups.
Hopefully, the result will be a small number of broadly based
parties who can garner significant support across different
regions.

Finally, the combination of district seats with 75 members
elected from a national list should ensure a rough overall
proportionally of election results, as minor interests who cannot
win a district seat will still have the opportunity to be
represented in the House via the party list.

The way these list seats are allocated, however, appears to be
a uniquely Indonesian innovation: list seats will be allocated on
the basis of the votes of the "unelected" parties who stood
unsuccessfully in the districts. The combined vote totals of
these "losing" parties will be combined to determine who will win
seats on the party list.

This means that minority interests should still be able to
gain some representation, even if the system is still tilted
heavily toward the district level.

While the proposed new electoral law is thus distinctively
Indonesian, and has been drafted with local concerns foremost in
mind, it is also representative of a wider regional trend in
combining elections in both local districts and a national list
together into one "mixed" system.

Such systems have become increasingly popular in recent years
in many countries, as constitutional drafters have attempted to
combine the benefits of geographic accountability, via single-
member electoral districts, with party proportionality via a
national list.

Moreover, the overall framework of a mixed system which places
an emphasis upon district representation is a feature of election
system choice in emerging democracies in general, and in the
Asia-Pacific in particular.

All of the East Asian states which can legitimately claim to
be democracies -- Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines,
and Thailand -- now use some version of this system (see table).
In additional, all of these countries place an emphasis in their
systems upon district level representation, with approximately 80
percent of all seats being elected from districts.

Indonesia's proposed new electoral system thus appears to be
an example of what may soon be hailed as a distinctive regional
model of electoral democracy. The greatest hurdle for the new
system is likely to come from the existing House. It will be
interesting to see whether House members will be prepared to put
the good of the nation foremost when voting on the new law later
this year.

Ben Reilly is an adviser on electoral reform at the
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
based in Stockholm. He is currently working in Jakarta.