The Next Regional Elections: Directly Elected by the People or Elite Intervention?
I no longer hesitate to say that Indonesia is a nation rich in intellectual tradition while also possessing a strong commitment to democracy as the foundation of state administration. This is reflected in the strengthening public debate regarding the mechanism for electing regional heads (Pilkada). The debate shows that society is not merely arguing about procedure, but also seeking to find a democratic design most suited to the constitutional mandate and the interests of the people.
On one hand, there is a view that direct regional head elections are the most tangible manifestation of popular sovereignty because they provide space for citizens to exercise their constitutional rights, both to vote and to be elected. On the other hand, a view has emerged that election through the Regional People’s Representative Council (DPRD) also fulfils democratic principles, given that DPRD members obtain a direct mandate from the people as political representation in the regions.
There is even an argument that if regional heads were appointed by the President under a certain design, such a mechanism could still be regarded as democratic as long as it obtains legitimacy through a constitutional system built upon the constitution.
The debate over the Pilkada mechanism is fundamentally not a conflict between democratic and undemocratic systems. All these models have argumentative foundations in democratic theory and constitutional practice. The main issue lies in the level of political legitimacy, accountability, and effectiveness of each mechanism in realising a regional government that is responsive to the needs of the people.
Therefore, the discourse on the constitutionality of Pilkada should not stop at procedural debate, but should be directed towards a more substantive question: to what extent can the chosen mechanism deliver welfare, strengthen the quality of democracy, and realise popular sovereignty as mandated by the constitution.
Some time ago, the Constitutional Court (MK), through Decision Number 195/PUU-XXIV/2026, reaffirmed that regional head elections remain held directly by the people. The decision is expected to be the final point in the debate over the discourse of returning the Pilkada mechanism to the DPRD, which has recently resurfaced in the public sphere.
In the case reviewing Article 1 point 1 of Law Number 8 of 2015 concerning Amendments to Law Number 1 of 2015 concerning the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2014 concerning the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law as last amended by Law Number 6 of 2020 concerning Pilkada, the Court declared the petitioners’ application inadmissible.
Through its ruling, the Constitutional Court affirmed that Pilkada remains conducted directly by the people, guided by the prevailing principles of general elections, without disregarding the special characteristics and privileges of regions recognised by the constitution.
If we examine this from a constitutional law perspective, the decision reaffirms the constitutional meaning of Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, which states that governors, regents, and mayors as heads of regional government are elected democratically.
This affirmation must also be read systematically together with Article 18 paragraph (7) of the 1945 Constitution, which grants a mandate to lawmakers to regulate the structure and procedures for regional government administration. Thus, the authority of lawmakers is not an unlimited authority, but must remain within the corridor of constitutional values and the principle of popular sovereignty.
Through this decision, the Constitutional Court has provided an increasingly clear interpretation that the phrase ‘democratically elected’ in the context of regional head elections is understood as direct election by the people. This interpretation not only provides legal certainty for the national Pilkada design, but also strengthens the constitutional construction that the people are the primary source of legitimacy for regional government.
In other words, regional heads obtain their political mandate directly from the citizens they will lead, not merely through the mechanism of political representation in the DPRD.
Furthermore, the Constitutional Court’s decision carries strategic significance for strengthening regional autonomy. Regional autonomy is not only related to the division of authority between central and regional governments, but also concerns how the legitimacy of regional government is built.
When regional heads are directly elected by the people, the relationship of political accountability is formed more clearly because the mandate obtained comes directly from voters. Consequently, regional heads bear a greater political responsibility to account for every policy to the public, not only to political elites or supporting parties.
In addition, Constitutional Court Decision Number 195/PUU-XXIV/2026 does not merely maintain the direct Pilkada mechanism, but also reinforces the direction of Indonesia’s constitutional democracy development. Local democracy must not be understood merely as a matter of procedure for electing leaders, but as an instrument to ensure that regional government administration obtains strong legitimacy, is accountable, and remains rooted in the principle of popular sovereignty as mandated by the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
The greatest challenge for lawmakers at present is to formulate constitutional steps as a follow-up to Constitutional Court Decision Number 135/PUU-XXII/2024.