Understanding the Debate: How Should Indonesia Choose Its Regional Leaders?

A fundamental debate has resurfaced in Indonesia's political landscape: how should the nation elect its regional leaders, such as governors, mayors, and regents? This question strikes at the heart of the country's democratic principles, pitting arguments of efficiency and stability against the core tenets of popular sovereignty established during the Reformasi era.

The controversy revolves around two distinct electoral models:

Direct Elections (Pilkada Langsung)	Indirect Elections (via DPRD)
Citizens directly vote for their regional leaders at the ballot box.	Members of the Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) choose the leaders.

This document will break down the primary arguments for and against each system, drawing on expert analysis to clarify what is at stake for the future of Indonesian democracy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Argument for Indirect Elections: A Push for Efficiency and Stability

Proponents of returning to an indirect election system, where leaders are chosen by the DPRD, primarily base their arguments on two major claims: cost savings and social stability.

1.1. The Financial Argument: Cutting Costs

A central argument is that direct elections are excessively expensive. The cost for the 2024 regional elections alone is cited at 37 trillion Rupiah. Proponents of indirect elections argue that this vast sum of public money could be reallocated to more effective public services and development programs, framing the switch as a matter of practical fiscal responsibility.

1.2. The Social Argument: Reducing Conflict

The second major claim is that direct elections lead to "horizontal conflict" and social friction at the grassroots level. The intense competition is said to cause divisions within communities, sometimes even leading to disputes as local as the village level. By allowing the DPRD to select leaders, advocates argue that this source of public division would be eliminated, leading to greater social stability and cohesion.

However, critics argue that these benefits come at a steep and unacceptable price for democracy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Argument for Direct Elections: Defending Democracy and People's Sovereignty

Opponents of the proposed change argue that abandoning direct elections would be a major setback for Indonesia's democratic journey, undermining the people's power and constitutional principles.

2.1. A Pillar of Indonesian Democracy

Direct elections are not merely a procedure; they are a fundamental achievement of Indonesia's Reformasi era. The historical context shows a clear democratic trajectory:

• The first direct regional elections in 2005 were a natural extension of the first direct presidential election in 2004.
• This idea of direct local elections is not new, tracing its roots back to Law No. 1 of 1957, which was drafted in the democratic spirit following Indonesia's very first general election in 1955.

This history frames direct elections as a core component of the nation's democratic consolidation, not an easily discarded experiment.

2.2. A Check on Elite Power

A core argument for maintaining direct elections is that they serve as a crucial check on the power of a small circle of political elites. An indirect system, critics warn, enables "power-sharing" and "dividing the cake" among parties without public accountability.

• Elite Consolidation: The potential candidacy of Ridwan Kamil in Jakarta, for instance, is cited as an outcome determined by "national elite consolidation," not necessarily grassroots support. In an indirect system, such elite arrangements would become the unchallenged norm.
• Citizen Power: In contrast, direct elections give citizens the power to "shake up" elite scenarios. A powerful example is the phenomenon of single candidates losing to the "empty box" (kota kosong), as seen in regions like Pangkalpinang in the 2024 elections. This demonstrates that even when elites achieve what appears to be total consolidation behind one choice, direct elections give the public a definitive veto power, proving that the ultimate decision still rests with the people.

2.3. The Constitutional Court's Verdict

While the 1945 Constitution states that regional leaders are "chosen democratically," the Constitutional Court (MK)—the sole interpreter of the constitution—has repeatedly and consistently affirmed that this means direct elections. Key interpretations from the MK, such as in the landmark ruling 85/2022, include:

• The MK considers regional elections (Pilkada) to be a form of general election (Pemilu).
• Pilkada must be conducted directly, publicly, freely, confidentially, honestly, and fairly, in line with constitutional principles.
• The MK's recent rulings have affirmed a model where regional leaders and DPRD members are elected simultaneously by the people.

Therefore, for critics, the push for indirect elections is not just a policy disagreement; it represents a direct challenge to the authority of the Constitutional Court and an attempt to proceed with an unconstitutional action.

Beyond the legal and procedural arguments, opponents of the change see this debate as a symptom of a much larger and more dangerous trend.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The Bigger Picture: Is This About More Than Just Elections?

Expert analysis suggests this debate is not merely about administrative efficiency but about the fundamental direction of Indonesia's political system.

3.1. A Warning Sign of Democratic Backsliding

The push to reduce the number of officials chosen by the public is seen as a classic sign of democratic decline. Citing political scientist Andrea Sedler, critics point to a concept known as the "menu of manipulation," where authoritarian regimes systematically limit the public offices that are subject to popular vote. This move is viewed as a step away from democracy and toward a more authoritarian model.

3.2. Misdiagnosing the Problem

The core critique is that returning to indirect elections does not solve the real problems plaguing Indonesia's democracy; it merely hides them from public view.

The real issues—such as high-cost politics, money politics (mahar politik), and a lack of integrity among political actors—are the root cause of the problems in the current system. These issues will persist in an indirect system. The only difference is that the same problematic actors will make decisions in "dark rooms" rather than in the public sphere, where citizens can at least observe and react. Furthermore, proponents of direct elections argue that the financial cost is an investment in stability, transforming potential conflict from "bullets to ballots" by giving citizens a direct stake in the outcome.

Therefore, rather than abandoning direct elections, the focus should be on fixing the underlying issues that plague the system.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. A Better Path Forward: Real Reforms Over Shortcuts

Instead of taking the shortcut of eliminating public participation, experts propose a series of genuine reforms to strengthen the democratic process.

1. Reform Political Parties Revise the Political Party Law and significantly increase state funding for parties. The goal is to foster genuine cadre development, reduce parties' reliance on illicit funds from oligarchs or state projects, and make them more autonomous, ideological, and accountable to the public.
2. Strengthen Law Enforcement & Accountability Systematically benahi (fix and improve) campaign finance accountability to ensure transparency. The independence of election organizers like Bawaslu (The Election Supervisory Agency) must be guaranteed, free from elite intervention and political pressure.
3. Implement Systemic Improvements Introduce technical and legal reforms to improve election integrity. Key suggestions include implementing electronic vote recapitulation to reduce fraud and, most importantly, passing a Law on the Limitation of Cash Transactions to combat "dawn attacks" (vote-buying) that rely on untraceable cash.

Ultimately, the choice between these two electoral systems represents a fundamental decision about the kind of country Indonesia aims to be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Conclusion: A Choice Between Elite Control and Public Participation

The debate over how to elect regional leaders is far more than a technical discussion about efficiency versus participation. It represents a critical crossroads for Indonesian democracy.

1. Synthesize the Core Conflict: The choice is between a shortcut that centralizes power, allowing elites to make decisions behind closed doors, and the more challenging but essential path of strengthening an authentic, people-driven democracy by fixing its flaws.
2. Highlight the Ultimate Risk: Experts warn that forcing indirect elections against the public will and the Constitutional Court's rulings could have the opposite of its intended effect. Rather than creating stability, it could paradoxically lead to more instability, triggering mass protests and consolidating public opposition to the government.
3. Deliver the Final Insight: The ultimate goal is to build an "Indonesia Emas 2045" (Golden Indonesia 2045). This vision of a prosperous and advanced nation requires strengthening, not diminishing, the role of its people. A system that views public participation as a burden risks creating an "Indonesia Cemas" (Anxious Indonesia), where progress is cosmetic and democracy is fragile.