The election for the Jakarta governor has somehow improved public faith in direct local elections as a democratic procedure.
Twice-elected mayor of Surakarta Joko “Jokowi” Widodo topped the
first-round poll by a decisive margin. Running for the governorship as a
reformist outsider, he has very strong anticorruption credentials as
well as a record of being an effective local leader. Jakarta voters have
been praised for being able to spot a good, clean leader.
The
voters have also been credited with being rational, independent and
fluid. The use of ethnic sentiment, patron-client loyalty, clientelist
politics and massive public campaigning to improve pencitraan
(superficial brand imaging) seems no longer to be effective in the
country’s capital city. No wonder that Jakarta has been commended for
achieving such democratic maturity.
One must keep in mind that
what happened in Jakarta’s election, however, is rooted in the fact that
the capital city is the most prosperous part of Indonesia. It has the
highest human development index. Despite the presence of socioeconomic
inequalities, its voters are dominated by a highly educated and
independent middle class.
Unfortunately, these characteristics
remain elusive in the other 32 provinces and 491 regencies/mayoralties.
But, the system (or more precisely, the procedure) of direct local
election has been implemented as a one-size-fits-all mechanism across
sub-national entities throughout the country.
The outcome of the
recent Jakarta election is a welcome surprise amid the increasingly
gloomy picture of direct elections, as seen in the troubled
gubernatorial elections in Aceh, North Maluku and West Papua; the deadly
election in the South Sulawesi regency of Tana Toraja and the Papuan
regencies of Puncak and Tolikara, and other cases of violent regional
elections. Not to mention the fact that many local executives are behind
bars for corruption, primarily driven by the increasingly expensive
nature of contesting direct regional elections.
Direct election
for local executives, which was introduced in 2005, can be seen as a
landmark in the process of political liberalization in this country. It
has become truly a free market for power.
The adoption of the
full open-list proportional representation system for legislative
elections at all levels in 2009 has made this political market even
worse. It has opened intra-party rivalries, in addition to the normal
inter-party competition. The former is even more ferocious than the
latter. As a consequence, legislative contests have become much more
expensive.
Again, I must stress that direct election is only one
procedure among other alternative ways of practicing democracy. It
should not be confused with the essence of democracy.
The move
toward direct election was due to dissatisfaction with the previous
procedure of indirect election through the local legislative councils
(DPRD). The old procedure was regarded as highly corrupt due to
vote-buying during the elections and only gave more power to local party
bosses due to the nature of the system. The previous system was blamed
for not being able to produce good and clean leaders.
The switch
to direct election does not seem to have overcome the shortcomings of
the previous method. Vote-buying, not solely limited to local
legislative council members, has become more rampant. Superficial
image-creation based politics, helped by the mushrooming of political
consultancy businesses, has flourished.
Direct elections have
increasingly led to expensive contests, and political corruption is the
most logical way of financing them. It is a truly free, political,
market in a naked sense.
You analyze the market to find out
customer preferences and select the most suitable product to offer. At
this moment, no need to worry about the quality of the product, spin is
more important. Make an investment decision, seek sponsors or investors
and finally take the risk.
It must be borne in mind however that each election produces only one winner, but losers abound.
As
far as the electoral procedure is concerned, Indonesia’s electoral
reform has been highly influenced by US practice. This is not surprising
as the key architects of the reform were dominated by US-trained
Indonesian political scientists. However, it appears that adopting the
American system is more than this country can handle.
From an
electoral perspective, the Indonesian electoral procedure has become
more American than that of America. In the US, it is true that
presidents, governors and mayors are all directly elected by popular
votes; but in most cases partisan politics are only practiced from the
state level (equivalent to provinces in Indonesia) and up, not below.
Nonpartisan direct elections are generally held for municipal and county
offices (equal to sub-provincial units in Indonesia), where political
party nominations are not required. Local elections in the US adopt
varieties of systems rooted in respective local electoral history.
While
party nominations exist in the New York mayoral elections, in addition
to independent candidates, Chicago has totally non-partisan direct local
elections for its mayor.
In the UK, the prime minister has
never been directly elected by popular votes, while local elections
adopt varieties of systems across their sub-national entities. The mayor
of London is directly elected and requires a party nomination.
Following the British style of democracy, our neighbor, Australia, has
never directly elected their prime ministers, state premiers or mayors.
However, no one would suggest that the UK and Australia are less democratic than the US.
It
is true that there are differences. While the US uses the presidential
system, the UK and Australia adopt the parliamentary one. In Indonesia,
the fundamental constitutional choice between presidentialism and
parliamentarism was not a controversial issue.
In this country,
we have direct and partisan local elections at all levels. Even village
heads in rural villages are also directly elected. While local elections
in the US and UK adopt varieties of systems, Indonesia’s direct
elections are more a one-size–fits-all approach. While the US and the UK
have practiced democracy for centuries, Indonesia has only embraced it
for a little more than a decade.
Moving from indirect to direct
elections is only about changing style in a game. It will not improve
the outcomes of the game as long as improvements in the essence of
democracy have not been put in place.
Direct and indirect
elections are equally liable to produce relatively good and clean local
leaders, as in the case of Mayor Jokowi in Surakarta (Solo), Central
Java and Regent Gamawan Fauzi in Solok, West Sumatra. At the same time,
both electoral styles have produced numerous incompetent and corrupt
local chiefs. Here, the cases of Jokowi and Gamawan are the exceptions
rather than the rule.
Therefore it would be misleading to
attribute the decline in enthusiasm for direct local elections as an
indication of a backlash against democracy. It is about finding the most
appropriate way. Of course there are trials and errors. This country
must learn from what works and what does not. Democracy is not only
about elections, but it cannot be less than that. But, how should we
conduct elections? It depends.
For now, however, we seem to be more American than the Americans.
The writer teaches development studies at the University of Western Sydney, Australia.