National Electoral District: Don't Force All Politicians to Compete in Local Areas

The revision of the Election Law is being discussed once again. The DPR’s Commission II has begun gathering public input. As usual, the issues that immediately emerge are whether to retain the open proportional system or not, whether candidate lists should remain open or return to closed, and the discourse on a mixed system.

However, there is one idea that deserves more serious discussion but has not received sufficient attention: the national electoral district.

This idea is important because it stems from a real problem. Our current electoral system seems to force all politicians to compete at the local level. Everyone must have a local electoral district. Everyone must enter local competitions. Yet, in reality, not all political work occurs at the local level.

There are party cadres who indeed grow from the grassroots, are strong in the field, close to voters, and suited to competing in local districts. But there are also central executives who work daily at the national level: formulating macro party strategies, maintaining organisational consolidation, nurturing coalitions, managing political direction, and ensuring party management runs smoothly.

The problem is that when elections arrive, they are all pushed into the same path: running as legislative candidates in a specific local district.

By the rules, this is permissible. But politically, it is often problematic. Central figures suddenly run in a local district not because they have strong social roots there, but because the electoral system offers no other choice. As a result, national political work is forced into local electoral competitions. Our system seems unwilling to acknowledge that there are political functions that indeed operate at the national level. This is where the national electoral district becomes relevant.

The System is Too Busy Managing Candidates

The national electoral district does not need to be understood as a total overhaul of the electoral system. Its strength lies in its moderate nature. This idea is present to refine our electoral system, not to replace it.

Imagine the DPR consists of 600 seats. Of that number, 500 seats remain elected from regional electoral districts using the proportional system, whether open or closed. Voters still choose parties or candidates in their respective regions. Regional representation is still maintained.

The remaining 100 seats are allocated as a national electoral district.

These 100 seats are distributed to political parties based on the percentage of valid national votes. If a party receives 20 per cent of the national vote, it gets about 20 seats from the national district. If it receives 10 per cent of the national vote, its allocation is about 10 seats. Simple. Easy to explain. Easy for the public to understand.

With such a model, the electoral system finally acknowledges one thing: there is national political work that deserves to be represented through a national channel as well.

More Sensible Than a Mixed System

Why should this idea be considered? Because it is more realistic than jumping straight into a mixed system.

A mixed system often sounds appealing. On paper, this system promises a combination of territorial representation and party proportionality. But in many places, such designs instead give birth to new complexities. Seat formulas become harder to understand, the potential for overhang seats emerges, and system loopholes can be exploited by political actors.

South Korea, for example, provides a clear illustration. Electoral reforms there were followed by the emergence of satellite parties formed to maximise gains from the new design. Instead of improving representation, the system was strategically manipulated by major parties. Indonesia does not need to rush into such complexities.

Compared to a full mixed system, the national electoral district is far simpler. The existing system is not dismantled. Regional districts continue to function. The open proportional system remains in use. What is added is simply a space for national representation for parties.

This is important especially because our current system is too heavily tilted towards candidate-centred approaches. Voters can indeed choose candidates directly. That is its advantage. But we also know the cost: intra-party competition becomes fiercer, campaign costs rise higher, and parties become busier seeking vote-getters than building institutions.

In such a situation, the national electoral district can serve as a counterbalance. This idea gives space to parties as institutions, not just as vehicles for candidates.

Of course, public concerns must still be addressed. The national electoral district should not become a safe path for party elites. Therefore, the design must be strict. The number of seats must be limited. National candidate lists must be announced from the start. A person should not run simultaneously in a regional district and the national district. The mechanism for compiling national lists must also be transparent so it does not turn into a space for patronage.

If these safeguards are absent, public criticism will be hard to refute.

But if the design is maintained, the national electoral district can become a sensible improvement step. This idea does not eliminate representation in local/regional districts, but it also does not force all political functions into local competitions.

In the end, the revision of the Election Law must not merely become an arena for repeating old debates. More importantly, it requires the courage to see our problems as they are. One such problem is the dominance of personal competition (candidate-centred), while the work of party organisational officials at the national level lacks adequate space.

If that is what needs to be addressed, then the national electoral district deserves serious consideration. It is time for our electoral system to stop pretending that all politicians must be born, live, and win in the same way.

Modern democracy needs regional representation, that is true. But democracy also needs strong parties as national institutions. And for that, the idea of a national electoral district deserves to enter the discussion table in the legislative space for revising the Election Law.

Dody Wijaya. Election Officer or Provincial KPU Commissioner for Jakarta