Since the 2024 elections, discussions on revising the election law and the Regional Election Law have continued. Unfortunately, there have been no concrete steps taken by lawmakers to seriously discuss the matter. When it entered a more urgent phase, the House of Representatives chose to discuss the matter separately. One reason for this is that the Regional Election Law is not included in the annual priority national legislation program. However, upon closer inspection, the real reason is public rejection of the discourse that regional heads should be elected by regional representative councils, which has been promoted by a number of parliamentary parties. This difference between the wishes of the elite and the public is probably the reason why the two laws have not been discussed until now.
The separation of the Election Law and the Regional Election Law could lead to a recurrence of the problems that have been felt so far, namely fragmentation of regulations. The current design of separate regulations for elections and regional elections has led to problems of inconsistent principles, overlapping norms, and gaps in democratic standards between national elections and regional elections. As a result, efforts to build democracy through electoral reform will be difficult to achieve. This includes the discourse on returning regional elections to be conducted through the DPRD, which will become easier to “condition.”
Discussed Simultaneously
The DPR’s decision to discuss the two laws simultaneously or separately is not merely a matter of timing. More than that, the DPR’s decision to separate the discussion of the Election Law and the Regional Election Law also has an impact on the commitment to improve our electoral system. With separate discussions, it is certain that the evaluation and dialogue process will not be comprehensive. Instead, it will be limited to technical and partial issues. Even worse, it could lead to lobbying and electoral calculations alone.
Discussing the Election Law and the Regional Election Law at the same time is the most ideal choice for reforming the electoral system. This is compounded by the end of the debate on whether regional elections are part of the electoral system or the local government system following the Constitutional Court’s decision. There are at least four Constitutional Court decisions that have ended this debate. Decision 55/PUU-XVII/2019, Decision 85/PUU-XX/2022, and Decision 135/PUU-XXII/2024. In these four decisions, the Court has confirmed that regional elections are part of the general election. Therefore, it is only natural that the two laws be discussed and drafted simultaneously.
Choice of Amendment Method
In addition to the timing of the deliberations, the method used to discuss the two bills will also affect the commitment to electoral reform. In this regard, the DPR appears to be very inconsistent. Initially, in 2025, almost all members of Commission II of the DPR said there were two options for the discussion method: omnibus or codification. Although at that time, the prevailing sentiment was to use the omnibus method. However, at least both options still carried one commitment, namely that more than one law would be discussed and amended simultaneously. Whether it be the Election Law and the Regional Election Law, or also including the Political Party Law, the Local Government Law, and a number of other laws. But now, the choice has shifted to a separate amendment method for each law.
Based on these facts, there are two potential options that may be chosen by the DPR. First, a comprehensive amendment that replaces the existing law. Second, a limited amendment that retains the existing law.
Looking at developments, the political narrative seems to be leaning closer to the second option. At least, that is what can be seen from the discourse on raising the parliamentary threshold that is being voiced by a number of political parties in parliament. This option would be very dangerous for the quality of the laws that would be produced. This is because limited changes would very likely be a step towards narrowing the space for discussion. Only aspects related to electoral gains and losses would be evaluated and changed. Meanwhile, aspects that are essential to voters would be left behind.
If we look back at the process of forming Law 7/2017, the same thing is very likely to happen again. Parties will discuss the revision process through policy packages that cannot be tampered with. If option 1 is chosen, then only a and b will be discussed, while c and d will not. And so on, so that there will be no truly comprehensive improvements. In fact, at that time, the method of change was codification, in which discussions were conducted thoroughly and comprehensively, from start to finish. One can imagine what would happen if such nuances were applied to a limited method of change. It is very likely that the dominant parties or coalition parties would determine the options and the contents of the package. However, one thing is certain: the efforts for improvement will not be realized.
Opposing the Constitutional Court Decision
Both the predetermined timing and the ambiguous method could conflict with Constitutional Court Decision 135/PUU-XXII/2024 if they are not discussed at the same time and using the codification method. This is because in the decision, the court has limited the interpretation of the two levels of elections, namely national elections and regional elections. Therefore, there are only two options: combining the two laws into one Election Law or separating them into a National Election Law and a Regional Election Law, as long as they are discussed simultaneously. Even so, the option to separate them has the potential to cause the same problems, redundancy, and fragmentation.
Lawmakers, especially the House of Representatives, should realize that the desire to separate the election regime and regional elections is actually an outdated discourse that is no longer relevant. In addition to leading to non-compliance with the Constitutional Court’s ruling, the choice to discuss the two laws separately will also have an impact on the quality of democracy, which will deteriorate. The public interest must not be held hostage by the elite’s desire to return to the regional election system of the New Order era. The process of discussing these two laws will be a barometer of the quality of Indonesian democracy going forward, whether it will survive or die at the hands of this regime. []
HAYKAL
Researcher at the Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem)