English Corner

Rejecting The Election Law Revision

By Dai Within Daniel

Introduction

Election is the process of selecting a person (s) to fill certain political offices. Positions are varied, ranging from the president to the head of the village. In essence, the elections are the means available for people to enjoy their sovereignty in accordance with the principles set forth in the preamble of the Constitution of 1945. However, lately, there are rumors that the election law will be revised. Elections are no longer with the people, but through the Parliament.

Our question is should the revision of the electoral law be enacted in Indonesia ?

            Prof. Dr. Yusril Mahendra , SH , M.Sc , Constitutional Law Expert, in his speech said that local elections should be returned to Parliament. He reasoned that election by Parliament, could save the state money and  avoid corruption or what we call the Money Politics. The cost of elections is very high. Sometimes the Regent election could cost 30-35 billion rupiah.          I , however, oppose  local elections being returned to Parliament just for the sake of saving the state money. Indirect election actually deprives people's rights in a democracy.

The Body

            The first reason why I oppose the revision of the election law is my skepticism of the opinion of Prof. Yuzril Ihza Mahendra. Efficiency in the implementation of election financing can be realized through holding local elections simultaneously. Elections for provincial and regency/city legislators could be held on the  same day/date, hour, and TPS at the same time as the election of the regional head and deputy head of the province and the regional head and deputy head of the district/city. These savings are not only happening in the polling station officials honorarium and PPS but also in sectors other expenses of three times to one's local elections. Holding Local elections simultaneously would reduce the cost of the campaign because the campaign will be organized by a coalition of two or three political parties for the election of members of Parliament and the election of the regional head and deputy head of the regional (provincial and district/city) .

            The second reason why I oppose the revision of the election law is my belief in the Indonesian Constitution. The 1945 Constitution determines that the state form adopted by Indonesia is Republic [vide Article 1 (1)]. As a consequence of a State in the form of the Republic, the sovereignty vested in the people [vide Article 1 (2)]. The implication is charging-state political office conducted directly by the people through elections [vide Article 2 paragraph (1), Article 6A, Article 18 paragraph (3), Article 19 paragraph (1), Article 22C paragraph (1), and Section 22E]. In spite of Article 18 paragraph (4) determined that Governors, Regents and Mayors are elected democratically, then the word "democratic" here should be understood that the head of the local elected directly by the people-the voters. In this case, once again, as a consequence of the shape of the Republic, the sovereignty of the people, then the people are the ones entitled to determine the regional head.

            The third reason why I oppose the revision of the election law, in my opinion, would be political stability. Political stability is important for local governments to run power. In order to maintain political stability, it is necessary to balance between the political forces and the head of the DPRD. In terms of regional heads elected by Parliament, as a consequence, Parliament will be given the authority to hold accountable and dismiss the head of the region before the expiry of his term. In fact, one of the characteristics of the presidential system of government is the certain period of time (five years) [fix term vide Article 7 and Article 22 E of paragraph (1) and (2)], and when the local head is elected and dismissed by Parliament, it is feared they will fall into political instability. Experience throughout the enactment of Law No. 22 of 1999 proved this. To avoid a prolonged political conflict between the head and the DPRD, and to maintain the political stability of the local government, then regional heads should be directly elected.

Conclusion

Direct election is the people's right, so there is no need to debate how much money will be spent in the elections. But if the costs remain a problem, then simultaneous elections may be the right solution. The system should be changed to be more cost effective.

Direct election is a means of learning democracy (politics) for the people (civic education). It became a medium of learning the practice of democracy for the people who are expected to establish all elements of the nation's collective consciousness about the importance of choosing the right leader according to their conscience.

Direct election is a manifestation of the 1945 Constitution. As mandated by Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, governors, regents and mayors respectively, as heads of the provincial, district, and municipal governments are elected democratically. This has been stipulated in Law No. 32 of 2005 concerning Election, Legalization, Appointment and Dismissal of Regional Head and Deputy Regional Head.

Direct election is the answer to the demands of the people's aspirations!