On mixed electoral system

On mixed electoral system

The article 'Mixed' electoral system an option by Ben Reilly
Aug. 12 leaves much that is not answered before Mr. Reilly's
claim, to wit: "... should dramatically increase levels of
accountability of politicians to the electorate." may be found to
hold any truth, or hope for future Indonesians.

Mr. Reilly's article concerns "The House" (of Representatives)
only. The current body of the same stature is of little stature.
What assurance is Mr. Reilly able to offer the public that "the
House" of which he writes will have stature? Where is the
evidence that tomorrow's bureaucrats will not continue with
today's "rule by decree", thus effectively unbenching "The
House"?

Is the party system of which Mr. Reilly speaks no different
from that of the present, in which the power elite's choices
occupy the seats? Without legally enforceable regulations for
ensuring that "district representation" is truly such, future
politicians will surely continue the abuses of the recent past.

The danger Mr. Reilly calls "localism" may be better referred
to as protectionism and gerrymandering in support of the dominant
political parties. Were an election rule to be adopted that
required the parties themselves (based on their candidates vote
totals) to have received a minimum specified total national vote
(i.e. 5 percent, as an example) in order for their candidates to
be seated, the parties would be forced to seek and present the
most desired candidates, the danger of localism will have been
averted and the people's choices will have been secured.

In the example above, I'm not suggesting that 5 percent become
the rule; perhaps 3 percent is more representative, or 2.5
percent. The percentage to be adopted should be determined on the
basis of the number of parties to be accommodated. If the top
three parties garner 70 percent of the total vote, a maximum of 6
other parties are accommodated at the 5 percent level and a
maximum of 10 others at the 3 percent level, for a total number
of represented parties of nine and 13, respectively. The
politics of the people will establish the number of contesting
parties, based on a rule that is not in itself discriminatory.

Much more information regarding the 75 National List seats is
needed before the thoughtful reader is able to draw any
conclusions, tentative or otherwise.

I hope in the future Mr. Reilly will continue to keep the
public informed, but with much more substance and much less
stroking.

C. DUPUIS

Jakarta