T

he Constitution of Republic of Indonesia again experiences (possibly) a friction,

which is about the mechanism of electing regional leaders. On Reformation Era,
the Law Number 23 Year 2004 states that Local Government, Governor, Regent,
and Mayor are directly elected by the citizen, right after the previous mechanism
in New Order, where they are elected by the Legislature (DPRD). However, in the manner
of the ratification of Governor Election Law Draft (RUU Pilkada) by the Republic of
Indonesias Parliament on last September 26th 2014, it is strongly possible that the election
of the regional leaders will be done by the Parliament. This means that the direct election
mechanism will be deleted. A few things that are going to be explained regarding to the
aforementioned phenomenon are the social reality facts, opinions from the experts, the
critical points, and the suggestion.

Social Reality Facts

As the Indonesian people woke up on the last Friday of this September, they woke
up to a different country. Their role as citizens had suddenly been diminished and they had
been reduced to extras, not holding the leading roles.
On last Friday, September 26th 2014, Indonesian Parliament ratified the Governor
Election Law Draft (RUU Pemilihan Kepala Daerah) on their paripurna session in
Senayan, Central Jakarta. Out of two Governor Election Bill that the government proposed,
that is direct governor election option or indirect governor election option (election
through legislature), finally the Indonesian parliament chose to ratify the second option;
which is the indirect election. Out of the 361 board members that attended the voting on
that session, there were 226 members that chose the indirect election, which is through
legislature (DPRD), and the 135 of them chose the direct election. The bill was finally
passed after a heated debate that lasted for 10 hours.
Indirect governor election here means that an election of regional leaders is not
done by the Indonesian citizens who choose the governor candidates but the governor
election is done by the Legislature acting as the representatives in the regional levels. This
particular mechanism is actually a mechanism of appointing a head region that was once
applied in New Order under the 1945 Constitution Pre Amendment (based on New Order
commentary).
The system was introduced in 2005 in a bid to allow new politicians to emerge, not
linked to the old political elite.
It was former presidential candidate Prabowo Subiantos Gerindra Party, and his
Red-White Coalition partners, that pushed to have district chiefs, mayors and governors
indirectly voted in by local parliaments, as they were in 2005. Under the new legislation,
governors from Prabowos coalition, which controls 31 out of 34 provincial legislatures, are
expected to dominate the country.
Supporters of the move say direct elections are expensive and rife with fraud a
point dismissed by opponents, including Corruption Eradication Commission officials,
who say indirect elections invite even more corruption.

Expert Opinions
Current President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo (Jokowi) supported the direct
election of governor by the citizens instead of indirect election through Indonesian
Legislature. He and many other experts thought that this phenomenon is a step back on
democracy.
According to him, the direct governor election that gives a chance for the citizens to
directly choose the regional leaders contents more positive values rather than the indirect
election.
There are three reasons. The first reason is that the direct election could impact on
the governors themselves to put their attention to their citizens (because he or she is
chosen by the citizens), said Jokowi in Jakarta.
Through the direct elections, he continued, the people could use their political
rights to choose the leader that they truly wanted.
Or in other words, in the near future, the chosen leaders will absolutely be the
leader that the mob truly wants, said Jokowi, who was chosen as the President of
Indonesia period 2014-2019.
Directly elect regional leaders, according to him, will also have both responsibility
and moral burden to serve the citizens.
Of course, when they are chosen by the people, governors and mayors will have
moral burden. A governor should mind his or her peoples need and welfare, he stated.
Another direct election supporter, Titi Anggraini, the executive director of
Perludem also stated that society will need to be prepared for leaders who are going to
obey local parliaments more than they serve the people.
Titi also said that many people have just realized that their political rights have
been taken right after the ratification of the Draft of Bill ( Rancangan Undang- Undang).
This case is shown by many rejections towards the decision.
Many people just realized that he or she has the political rights after it is taken,
said Titi at the moment she joined the action in Bundaran HI, on Sunday (28/9/2014)
Titi said that for ten years, the Indonesian citizens are used to the direct election
system. But, the peoples right in politics participation during these recent ten years has
just emerge right after their rights are taken. Which means the current struggle of the
citizens that is currently rejecting the indirect governor election is also an attempt to take
back their rights.

Titi also said that the rejections of the current Governor Election Law (UU Pilkada)
is a sign that the law is not pro-people. Many rejections mean a problematic law, said
Titi.
The mass action which is collecting the citizens identification cards (KTP) and
signatures, according to Titi is a way to keep the peoples critical attitude maintained. Titi
promised that all the material that will be brought to the Constitution Court have been
prepared. Titi admitted that she cannot filed directly yet because the aforementioned
Governor Election Law has not hold a number up until this time. But she made sure that
the charge materials are ready.

Critical Points
Anger Reaction over Indonesian Democratic Reversal
In the early hours of Friday morning, Indonesia's House of Representatives did the
unthinkable - passed a bill abolishing direct regional elections by an overwhelming
majority. Two hundred and twenty six members of parliament voted in favor of scrapping
these local polls, while 135 voted against it.
The decision was met by public outrage. Many Indonesians have taken to social
media to express their anger. #RIPDemokrasi has become a trending topic on Twitter in
Indonesia, and some Indonesians have put up black boxes as their profile picture on
Facebook in protest.
Many protests by the direct election supporter said that the new mechanism felt
like going back to the Suharto era. Why are we going back to the times of dictatorship?
There were many flaws in that system. This is a very bad decision, said Arif, a 26 year old
coffee shop barista in Jakarta.
Under Suharto's 32 year-long regime, local leaders were appointed by local
parliaments - a system which experts say engendered nepotism and cronyism.
Direct elections for mayors, regents and governors began in 2005 as part of
Indonesia's post-Suharto democratic transition.
But in recent years there has been criticism by some of Indonesia's politicians that
the local polls are too expensive, and in many cases have led to corruption.
In every five year period there are 542 local elections, costing the government 70
trillion rupiah ($5.8bn: 3.6bn), according to the interior ministry. Some estimates show
that more than 50 per cent of locally elected leaders have been accused of corruption.
But even so, there is still a possibility this decision could be overturned. Some
locally elected Indonesian politicians have indicated they will appeal this decision in the
constitutional court. It is not clear what grounds the appeal would be filed on, but the
decision from the constitutional court is final.

Suggestion
Democracy is indeed a problematic issue. One thing that some people struggle with
is the notion that democracy in itself seems to confer a free rein to do whatever we please,
or at least whatever the majority pleases.
So is Indonesia, or should Indonesia, be a democracy?
Because of the fact that the direct election system is only applied to the president,
not universally applicable to the election of the governors of the state, then instead of
worrying over democracys unintended consequences, what we saw in the House of
Representatives is exactly what we should be worried about.
I personally agree that democracy should not be ended. Im sure that Indonesia is a
republic governed by our Constitution. Yet, a Constitution is a social contract between a
countrys citizens on having a good government to govern their lives and achieve a socially
accepted goal. Democracy in a constitutional republic should not mean a diminished role
for the public.
It would be wrong to interpret that democracy in a constitutional republic means
that a group of politicians, not citizens themselves, have the rights to curtail our
participatory democracy.

References
thejakartapost.com
bbcnews.com
time.com
lpmgemakeadikan.com
megapolitan.kompas.com