Indonesia's Electoral Landscape
Introduction
Indonesia is the world’s third largest democracy, with a population of over 260 million people across over 17,000 islands. Since the end of authoritarian rule in 1998, the country has held regular democratic elections, making it a regional model for democratic consolidation. General elections serve as a barometer of the health and maturity of Indonesia’s democracy. They provide opportunities for citizens to choose their representatives and hold them accountable.
Elections also compel parties and politicians to organize and communicate their platforms to the public. Successive elections have seen high voter turnout and participation across the archipelago. This highlights the population’s embrace of electoral democracy and peaceful transfer of power. However, past elections have also exposed deep political and societal divides based on ethnicity, religion and class. Managing free and fair elections across thousands of islands and hundreds of ethnic groups remains an ongoing challenge. As the world’s largest Muslim democracy, Indonesia’s elections are also closely watched by the global community as a harbinger for Islam’s compatibility with democracy.
Definition of General Elections
In many democratic nations, general elections serve as important symbols and measures of the health of a country’s democracy. Elections represent the public’s participation in choosing political leadership and provide a ritualized opportunity for people to make their voices heard.
However, elections alone do not fully encompass the meaning of democracy. True democracy requires ongoing public participation beyond just voting in periodic elections. Activities like joining political parties, organizing around issues, lobbying representatives, and participating in civil society help ensure that the public has influence in between elections as well.
While elections provide a snapshot of the public’s preferences, ongoing civic participation helps translate those preferences into substantive policy changes on an everyday basis. Therefore, general elections symbolize and measure democracy, but need to be complemented by sustained public engagement in the political process for a democracy to truly thrive.
Electoral Systems
There are two major principles determining structure general election systems use - the single member constituency system and the multi member constituency system.
Single Member Constituencies
The single member constituency system, also known as the district system, has each elected representative tied to a specific geographic constituency. This fosters greater accountability as the representative must closely align with constituent interests to be re-elected. It also promotes party integration and cooperation as representatives must work within their party to attain parliamentary majorities. However, a key disadvantage is that it can lead to distortions between the percentage of votes a party receives and the number of representatives it has in parliament. Smaller parties may get left out entirely.
Multi Member Constituencies
In contrast, the multi member proportional representation system aims to closely match the percentage of votes a party receives with the percentage of seats it gets in parliament. This makes it more representative of voter preferences. However, it tends to accentuate party differences over constituency concerns, as representatives feel accountable to the party first. This can contribute to political fragmentation as many smaller parties can gain seats. It also weakens the direct relationship between constituents and their representatives.
Single Member Constituencies (District System)
The single-member constituency system, also known as the district system, is one of the two fundamental principles for structuring general elections. Under this system, electoral districts are delineated with each district represented by a single elected official.
This system promotes greater party integration and cooperation as candidates often require endorsement from their party to win their district’s election. Smaller and new parties may find it more difficult to gain traction and win seats under this structure, limiting the formation of new parties in the political system.
In addition, the single-member district system fosters a closer tie between the elected representative and their constituents in that district. This can simplify the process of attaining parliamentary majorities. However, one disadvantage is that it can potentially lead to distortions between the percentage of votes a party receives across districts and the number of seats they hold in the legislature. A party could win a large share of votes but only a small number of seats if their support is dispersed across many districts at modest levels.
Overall, the single-member constituency system emphasizes party integration and alliances while constraining new party growth. It links representatives firmly to geographic districts though vote percentages may not align cleanly with legislative seats.
Multi Member Constituencies
Conversely, the proportional representation system that uses multi-member constituencies is deemed more representative, as it better aligns the percentage of votes a party receives with the percentage of parliamentary seats they are allocated. This helps ensure that the number of seats each party gets closely reflects their portion of the national vote.
However, proportional representation systems that use multi-member constituencies also tend to accentuate differences between parties, as they encourage many different parties to run rather than forcing them to form pre-electoral coalitions. This can lead to a more fragmented political landscape with many small parties representing narrow interests rather than a few large “big tent” parties.
In addition, representatives elected in multi-member proportional systems tend to prioritize their party’s interests over the concerns of their geographic constituencies. Since they are elected based on their party’s share of the vote rather than a specific district’s support, they are incentivized to follow the party line rather than be accountable and responsive to a defined group of constituents.
Indonesia’s Electoral History
Indonesia held its first general election in 1955 after gaining independence in 1949. This inaugural election utilized a proportional representation system that integrated elements of district and party-list models. Voters could cast ballots for individual candidates in electoral districts as well as political parties.
Over the following decades, Indonesia’s electoral system underwent various reforms that altered the blend between district and proportional mechanisms. In the 1970s, closed party lists were introduced, reducing the voters’ ability to select individual candidates. This decade also saw an increase in the number of electoral districts.
Additional reforms came in the early 2000s after the fall of Suharto’s authoritarian New Order regime in 1998. In 2004, Indonesia adopted a mixed electoral framework that incorporated both district and proportional systems. For the People’s Representative Council (DPR), the proportional open-list model was maintained. However, the new Regional Representative Council (DPD) utilized a single-member district system.
This hybrid model reflected an effort to balance the district system’s tendency to promote party integration and the proportional system’s representativeness of diverse viewpoints. Indonesia’s electoral evolution displays a nuanced navigation of the tradeoffs inherent in each system.
2004 Reforms
In 2004, Indonesia implemented reforms to its electoral system. A district system was introduced for the Regional Representative Council (DPD), while proportional representation was maintained for other legislative bodies like the People’s Representative Council (DPR).
Under the district system, DPD representatives are elected from constituencies at the provincial level. This ties them more closely to their constituents in the regions. The number of DPD members per province depends on its population.
The rationale was to provide better regional representation. DPD members are focused on voicing regional interests at the national level. The district system was seen as simplifying the process for voters to elect representatives devoted to their province.
At the same time, proportional representation was kept for the DPR and other bodies. This maintained a close alignment between the percentage of votes obtained by political parties and their number of seats in the legislature. The proportional system was deemed important to reflect the will of voters across Indonesia.
By blending district and proportional elements, the 2004 reforms aimed to balance improved regional representation with fair reflection of national voter preferences. This dual approach was viewed as suiting Indonesia’s diverse population spread across many islands and provinces.
Conclusion
As evidenced by Indonesia’s electoral history, designing an election system requires careful consideration of context. The nation’s initial 1955 system with proportional representation sought broad representation amidst a diverse population. However, subsequent shifts introduced localized single member constituencies to promote party cohesion while retaining proportional mechanisms to reflect voter preferences. The 2004 reforms blend both district and proportional systems through localized DPD representatives and party-list parliamentary members.
Overall, Indonesia’s experience highlights the importance of balancing representation and stability based on a country’s socio-political realities. There are merits to both single member plurality and proportional systems - the former fosters accountability and cohesive parties while the latter ensures diverse representation. Electoral systems inevitably involve trade-offs and revisions to address evolving needs. Indonesia provides an insightful example of these dynamics, with context determining the appropriate electoral framework.
While no system is perfect, Indonesia’s efforts illustrate an electoral evolution seeking representativeness within a fragmented society and stability amidst decentralized governance. As the nation moves forward, harnessing the benefits of both plurality and proportional mechanisms can strengthen its democracy. Most importantly, elections should not be seen as an endpoint, but as part of broader participatory processes enabling citizen voice and oversight between polls.