Democracy and regional elections in Indonesia Gautama Adi Kusuma  ;   Program Evaluation Analyst, Office of Assessment and Evaluation, Virginia Tech

JAKARTA POST,  27 September 2014

                                                                                                                       

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. What happened in forming the act that governs the provincial and regional elections and changing the course of direct elections to closed-off legislative elections is nothing short of a blatant fraud and misrepresentation of democracy and the Indonesian Constitution by the Red-and-White Coalition’s political parties. While the narrative to do away with direct elections questions the cost efficiency of those elections, the underlying tone of the argument is to question the essence and value of our democracy. The opponents of direct elections put an end to the underlying value that those elections represent, democracy. 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? One side argues that what transpired last night was democracy. But was it democracy? When political parties who lost the election, the direct presidential election, hold grudges and advance their own political agenda that they never stated during the legislative or presidential elections, is that democratic? Can anyone in their right mind believe that such fraud and misrepresentation, as shown by some members of the House of Representatives, represent our agreed-upon democracy? The American founding fathers were so worried about democracy that they barely mention democracy in the Federalist Papers. James Madison was so worried over democracy’s intrusion into individual rights that he argued, “Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Some proponents of the indirect elections have even used the American example of the Electoral College to highlight the need to do away with direct elections. However, the argument of the proponents of indirect elections using the American example does not only misrepresent the fact but also defrauds the public of the true meaning of democracy and the Constitution. While it is true that the Electoral College determines who becomes the US president, one should remember that these electors do not meet secretly behind closed doors to determine who should be elected, unlike what would likely transpire in the local legislative councils. In addition, these councilors choose candidates who have been vetted during primaries, as a form of direct election of candidates within the party. Finally, the system is only applied to the president, not universally applicable to the election of the governors of the state. Thus, while we should be worried over democracy’s unintended consequences, what we saw in the House of Representatives is exactly what we should be worried about. During the voting process, the political parties in the Red-and-White Coalition who hold the majority of seats trampled citizens’ rights to determine who they could choose to be their leaders. As Madison noted, “A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party.” In this sense, the weaker party is, ironically, the citizens. I personally believe that democracy should not be ended. I believe, strongly, that Indonesia is a republic governed by our Constitution. Yet, a Constitution is a social contract between a country’s citizens on how to best 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. While Plato’s definition of a philosopher king is probably the ideal type of leader, with unrivaled effectiveness and efficiency, I would seriously doubt the sincerity, quality and the incorruptibleness of the “kings” to whom I would give my votes and choose what kind of leader I should have. I dread the reality. ●