The People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) has recently responded to a proposal to hold Regional Head Elections (Pilkada) through the Regional People’s Representative Councils (DPRD), with council members appointed by the central government.
The initiative stems from the intention to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the Pilkada process. However, the proposal has sparked controversy among political parties, experts, and the public.
Alfath Bagus Panuntun, a lecturer at the UGM Faculty of Social and Political Sciences (Fisipol UGM), addressed the issue from both academic and practical perspectives.
According to Panuntun, the system of electing regional heads through the DPRD is not new. Before 2005, this method was applied and deemed consistent with the 1945 Constitution. Over time, following the Reform era and constitutional amendments, the system was changed to direct elections to expand public participation.
For Panuntun, the main point to consider is not merely whether the system complies with the constitution, but whether it encourages or undermines public engagement.
“This is a matter of political choice whether we want our democracy to be more participatory or to be limited to the hands of the elite,” Panuntun said on Tuesday (Aug. 12).
From a financial standpoint, Panuntun acknowledged that a DPRD-based election system is indeed more cost-efficient and procedurally simpler. However, he stressed that democracy is not merely a procedural value.
“Democracy has a deeper meaning in terms of the role of individuals within a state system,” he added.
Panuntun emphasized that democracy is inherently “costly” because it continuously strives to encourage political participation. This, he noted, is an inevitable consequence for a country that embraces democratic principles.
However, it is important to recognize that the higher the level of public involvement, the stronger the democracy will be, enabling the state to become more inclusive and to uphold citizens’ rights fairly.
“The ‘high cost’ is worth paying to ensure a more participatory political process,” he stated.
Reflecting on previous Pilkada evaluations, which revealed widespread practices of vote buying and political dynasties, Panuntun identified three key issues: high political costs, corruption, and bureaucratic politicization. According to him, the solution lies not in restricting the people’s right to vote, but in improving the design and oversight of Pilkada.
“The government must understand that election funding issues should not become an obstacle to promoting public political participation. A comprehensive review is needed to determine which expenses are necessary and which are not, in order to ensure fair elections,” Panuntun explained.
He further stressed the importance of strengthening oversight from the nomination stage, not just during and after the election. In terms of regulations, Pilkada and general elections already have binding legal provisions in place.
Unfortunately, their implementation still requires significant improvement. Alfath also urged reducing privileges for incumbent officials to ensure that those elected as regional heads are genuinely suited to their positions.
“Democracy will shift toward a more elitist form, distancing the public from decision-making processes,” Panuntun said.
On the other hand, he noted that mainstreaming the agenda of political and electoral reform must go hand in hand with strengthening the institutions that organize and supervise elections, as well as the political actors participating in them.
“If we want to strengthen democracy, the space for public political participation must be expanded and enhanced, not reduced or restricted,” he concluded.
Author: Tasya
Editor: Gusti Grehenson
Illustration: Kompas.com