Dr. Phil. Aditya Perdana
Director of the Center for Political Studies (PUSKAPOL) Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Indonesia
This article was published in the Sindo newspaper on March 22, 2017
This March, the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) conducted a comparative study visit to Germany and Mexico to study the electoral systems in both countries. Various negative reactions emerged due to the high cost of the comparative study and expressed regret over the DPR’s failure to seriously consider input from election experts in Indonesia.
The DPR’s justification for conducting this comparative study was to delve deeper into crucial issues related to the proposed change in the electoral system from proportional representation (PR) to mixed member proportional representation (MMP). MMP has been successfully implemented in both countries.
But the most fundamental question to discuss is why it’s important to do this now, given the complexities of changing the simultaneous election schedule starting in 2019. This article will attempt to analyze politicians’ views on the electoral system reform agenda.
The Urgency of Election System Reform
The essence of elections lies in how voters’ votes are converted into representative seats. Electoral system reform also debates key variables, such as the electoral formula used to calculate seat allocations as desired by politicians. Generally, there are two electoral systems worldwide: the plurality majority system and the proportional representation (PR) system. Some countries, however, adopt both systems, namely the mixed member proportional representation (MMP) system.
In several studies on general elections conducted by the Administration and Cost of Elections Project (ACE Project), changes in the electoral system were influenced by two conditions. First, politicians who lack a detailed understanding of the desired changes accompanied by inadequate information in promoting the new system will have consequences and impacts that have undesirable influences in the future. This view will be very dangerous if policy makers really do not take into account future social and political risks.
Second, politicians who understand the detailed changes effectively promote them because they consciously understand the political interests that will be achieved for themselves and their political parties. The latter condition allows for the stability of the electoral system in the future. However, electoral system reform is a negotiation between politicians, so we must understand that considerations related to their political interests are crucial in every decision.
It is true that the realm of political policymaking, such as elections, rests with the House of Representatives (DPR) and the government. However, public input must also be valued and accommodated in this policy-making process, as has been frequently emphasized by election NGO activists and election researchers in our country recently.
Even citizens in British Columbia, Canada, were able to participate in a referendum on their electoral system in 2009. Therefore, the essence of public involvement is aimed at building strong political institutions, which naturally aims to stabilize democratic governance. However, opportunities for change can also be accommodated to create better conditions.
Trends in Changes in the Election System
According to the ACE Project report, many countries have taken serious steps to change their electoral systems. Most countries are making these changes to strengthen their representation, particularly toward a PR system.
Some countries that adopted a pluralist majority system have transitioned to MMP. However, according to the report, none have made the reverse transition, from a mixed system to a majoritarian pluralist system.
Interestingly, according to the ACE Project, four countries are transitioning from list proportional representation (PR) to MMP. These countries are Bolivia, Venezuela, Romania, and Ukraine. In this context, the House of Representatives (DPR) should consider studies in these four countries, as the desired changes align with our current system, namely list PR.
Meanwhile, Germany and Mexico have adopted a mixed system under stable conditions. This means that while a trend of change is indeed occurring, the House of Representatives (DPR) must also seriously consider the desired changes.
Quo Vadis?
After the 1998 reforms, Indonesia experienced two fundamental changes to its electoral system, namely in 1999 and 2004. In 1999, due to strong pressure from student groups to reform political institutions, DPR politicians and the government agreed to continue the PR system with a closed list and various adjustments such as the newly implemented multi-party system.
However, a drastic change occurred in 2004 when the closed-list PR system was replaced by an open-list system, with the introduction of sequential numbers on the candidate lists. The rationale for implementing this more open system was to give the public the opportunity to directly elect their preferred candidates.
Unfortunately, the open PR system based on a ranked list has not yielded entirely satisfactory results. The elected candidate is still determined by the power of political party leaders, based on their ranking. In 2009, however, voters were able to fully determine their preferred candidate without interference from party leaders.
As far as I know, based on observations of every election since the reforms, House of Representatives (DPR) politicians have consistently debated changes to the electoral system every five years. Since 2007, the debate over the electoral system has centered around PR versus open or closed lists. In 2017, discussions on electoral system reform have shifted to the idea of implementing a MMP system. The question then is, where will our electoral system reform go if crucial changes occur before each election?
As we know, politicians’ interest in electoral reform is based on the desire to maintain their votes in their respective electoral districts. One rationale for MMP supporters, for example, is that it provides a proportional opportunity for small and medium-sized parties to win seats.
Furthermore, MMP also ensures stronger ties between politicians and their voters and between politicians and their political parties. These two factors have consistently been strong arguments among politicians for electoral system reform: accommodating smaller political parties and strengthening the relationship between politicians and their parties.
Unfortunately, when the House of Representatives (DPR) proposed reforming the electoral system to improve our political representation, its efforts were tarnished by its own poor public behavior. Furthermore, the behavior of DPR members, who ignored the serious studies of our election experts and preferred to conduct comparative studies in other countries within a relatively short timeframe, also demonstrated the DPR’s lack of seriousness in implementing the electoral system reforms they sought.
Yet, as global election experts have warned in the ACE Project study, changes to the electoral system require technical considerations and require serious and thorough assessment of the impacts, which must be predicted well in advance. Electoral system reforms are not proposed solely for the benefit of politicians and political parties.
Therefore, I am of the view that the agenda for codifying the Election Law and unifying the election schedule in 2019 is a policy priority that needs serious attention by the DPR and the government rather than carrying out an electoral system reform that has yet to be imagined the political impacts and consequences that will be faced later.
