Electoral Challenges in Indonesia

By: Masykurudin Hafidz, National Coordinator of the People’s Voter Education Network (JPPR)

SURAU.CO – As the world’s largest democratic Muslim country, Indonesia has made significant strides in its electoral processes. However, a closer look reveals persistent electoral challenges in Indonesia that require immediate attention. The fall of Soeharto in 1998 sparked the Reform movement, which led to significant constitutional amendments. For the first time, these changes inserted the concept of ‘election’ into the constitution. Consequently, this new framework shifted the selection of the president and regional heads to direct elections and also created an independent election management body (EMB).

Unfortunately, Indonesia enacted fourteen separate electoral laws in just fifteen years. This rapid and fragmented law-making has, in turn, caused major complexities. As a result, the country now suffers from inconsistent application of laws, overlapping authority, and a complicated law enforcement process. This chapter, therefore, discusses these electoral challenges in Indonesia by examining its legal framework, institutional obstacles, and specific areas of electoral management that need improvement.

A Complex Legal Framework: A Core Electoral Challenge

To begin with, the electoral challenges in Indonesia start with its numerous and often conflicting laws. Currently, a complex web of at least six separate statutes governs democratic representation. These laws cover everything from election management bodies to political parties and the structure of legislatures (MD3 Law). Authorities often review and update these laws separately for each election cycle. Moreover, short-term political factors, rather than a holistic need for improvement, heavily influence this process. This approach inevitably creates internal inconsistencies, legal uncertainty, and loopholes that the EMB must navigate.

Key problems in the existing legal framework include:

• Contradictory Provisions: First, different election laws contain provisions that conflict with one another, which causes confusion for polling station staff.

• Overlapping Authority: Second, the laws do not always clearly delineate the roles of different election bodies. This, consequently, leads to turf wars and inefficiency.

• Inconsistent Punishments: In addition, the legal framework lacks a standard for law enforcement across different elections, especially regarding election courts and criminal sanctions.

• Incoherent Requirements: Furthermore, authorities have amended voting procedures several times. For instance, the method has switched from punching the ballot to ticking, and then back again, leading to voter confusion.

• Legal Vacuums: Critically, the law weakly regulates areas like campaign finance monitoring. This creates an unlevel playing field for candidates.

  Baca juga: Partisipasi Bermakna dalam Pesta Demokrasi

Institutional Flaws and Overlapping Authority

Besides legal fragmentation, Indonesia’s electoral framework is unique in its institutional design. While it uses an independent model, legal reforms have created a complex structure. The country’s election organizers consist of the General Elections Commission (KPU) and the Election Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu). Although the law intends for them to function as a unified entity, they remain separate bodies. The KPU conducts elections, while Bawaslu oversees their implementation. This dual structure, combined with the ad hoc status of lower-level committees, can create systemic overlapping authority and significant coordination challenges.

Adding to this complexity is the Constitutional Court, which has the final say in resolving election disputes. While this provides a check and balance, the overall institutional design remains fragmented. Therefore, this structure poses one of the most significant electoral challenges in Indonesia.

Practical Failures in the Election Process

Beyond legal and institutional flaws, Indonesia’s elections face numerous practical challenges on the ground.

• Voter Registration: First, despite an online system (Sidalih), problems like name duplication and the inclusion of deceased voters persist. An inaccurate voter list often disenfranchises eligible citizens and can become a tool for fraud.

• Campaign Finance and Vote Buying: Next, money politics has become increasingly intrusive. For instance, monitoring by Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) showed that candidates massively committed violations during the 2014 elections, including vote-buying.

  Baca juga: Perilaku Pemilih di Pilkada Tanpa Kompetisi

• Unequal Media Access: Another issue is that media outlets owned by political figures often support their own candidates. This practice creates unequal campaign conditions, as parties without media ownership must pay for advertising.

• Political Clientelism and Dynasties: Finally, a strong culture of political clientelism has fueled the rise of political dynasties. In this system, leaders often regard the public sector as personal property, prioritizing loyalty over competence and turning democracy into a mechanism to legitimize the power of local bosses.

Conclusion and Recommendations

To overcome these electoral challenges, Indonesia needs a comprehensive approach. First and foremost, the government must codify all election laws into a single, understandable legal framework. Such a move will create synergy and reduce contradictions. Furthermore, this new legal structure must ensure that vote counting is accurate, fair, and transparent.

Ultimately, while the open-list proportional system has flaws, it remains a better option than the closed-list system of the past. The key, therefore, is to improve it by strengthening campaign finance regulations, ensuring post-election accountability, and fostering internal party democracy. Strengthening the electorate through better laws and robust enforcement is the only way to recruit accountable public officials and build a healthier democracy in Indonesia.