In 1945, the great English writer George Orwell indirectly warned that when the voice of the people is replaced by a small elite, democracy will turn into tyranny. This warning was written in a political allegorical novel titled Animal Farm. Orwell wrote it as a satire and criticism of the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of totalitarianism under Joseph Stalin.
Animal Farm generally tells the story of a rebellion by animals on a farm to overthrow humans in order to create an egalitarian society. However, after power was taken over by the pigs, especially Napoleon, the ideals of equality were slowly betrayed: rules were changed, propaganda was spread, and power was concentrated in the hands of a small elite.
Like all novels that stand the test of time, Animal Farm has endured because it is considered relevant to political developments. Animal Farm is not merely a critique of a single regime or historical event, but a mirror of how power works: how idealism can be hijacked, language twisted to justify domination, and collective participation slowly replaced by claims of elite representation.
In every era, these things happen, even in the most subtle forms, through seemingly technocratic changes in regulations and shifts in mechanisms that are claimed to be more efficient. And in the context of Indonesia today, this ignorant behavior is the discourse of regional elections through the Regional Representative Council (DPRD).
The discourse of regional elections through the DPRD at first glance appears to be a procedural correction: more cost-effective, more controllable, more stable. However, as in Animal Farm, the issue is not simply who makes the decisions, but how those decisions are made and to whom the leaders feel accountable. For example, when the general assembly of animals was abolished and all decisions were centralized among the pigs, collective participation was ultimately replaced by the claim that the elite “knew better” what was best. Similarly, when regional heads are elected by the DPRD, the direct relationship between citizens and their leaders is severed, replaced by negotiations and the configuration of party power behind closed doors.
Another problem is that, in a political system still dominated by oligarchy, this shift risks transferring accountability from the people to the elite factions. As a result, regional heads will be more sensitive to the political support map in parliament than to the direct assessment of voters. As in Orwell’s story, slogans about democracy and representation may be maintained, but in practice, the principle of political equality is being abandoned.
The Debate is Over
Regional elections through the Regional Representative Council (DPRD) are irrelevant in the context of today’s constitutional law. The debate over whether they should be direct or indirect seems to be still open, even though the constitutional direction is crystal clear. A number of Constitutional Court (MK) decisions have consistently emphasized that regional heads are elected democratically in a substantive sense, namely through mechanisms that provide space for direct and equal participation for citizens.
Historically, the development of the regional election system in Indonesia shows a constitutional dynamic that is not linear, but has a increasingly clear direction in placing people’s sovereignty as the main foundation. Since the amendment of the 1945 Constitution, Article 18 paragraph (4) states that governors, regents, and mayors “are elected democratically”. This phrase then became an arena of interpretation that determined the direction of the regional election design.
The Constitutional Court has issued at least five rulings that illustrate the shift in the constitutionality of the regional election system in the 1945 Constitution:
- No. 072-073/PUU-II/2004 (March 22, 2005) with the core of the ruling being that regional elections are the choice of the legislators to determine whether they are part of the general election or local government election regime.
- Number 97/PUU-XI/2013 (May 19, 2014) with the core decision that regional elections are part of the local government regime.
- Number 55/PUU-XVII/2019 (February 26, 2020) which states that regional elections are part of the electoral regime.
- Number 85/PUU-XX/2022 (September 29, 2022) states that there is no separation between the electoral regime and regional elections.
- Number 135/PUU-XXII/2024 (June 26, 2025) states that regional elections must be conducted through direct voting.
When arranged chronologically, these five rulings show a constitutional evolution that is becoming increasingly focused. From initially opening up space for legislative policy (open legal policy), the Constitutional Court has moved towards a more assertive affirmation that local democracy must be realized through direct voting mechanisms. Thus, it is clear that the debate about regional elections through the Regional Representative Council no longer has a strong constitutional basis.
Today’s debate on regional elections should be between the two poles of constitutional democracy and administrative efficiency; there is no longer any room for direct or indirect elections. Arguments about high costs, complexity, and conflicts, which are often used as grounds for reviewing direct regional elections, should be placed as issues of governance and integrity that need to be addressed, not as a means of reducing the people’s right to vote.
Simplifying the Process, Preserving Voting Rights
Cost arguments are often used as a basis for reviewing direct regional elections. Indeed, holding regional elections requires a large budget due to the complexity of logistics, distribution, security, and support for organizers across all regions. However, the question is, are high costs a failure of democracy, or simply a matter of inefficient governance?
In a democracy, costs are a consequence of guaranteeing direct citizen participation. Therefore, the more appropriate solution is not to reduce voting rights, but to improve the management of the election process, starting with more standardized budget planning, efficient procurement and logistics, and the digitization of administration.
Furthermore, the high political costs incurred by candidates are not solely due to direct regional elections, but also to internal party structures and nomination mechanisms that lack transparency. Transferring the election to the Regional Representative Council (DPRD) does not automatically eliminate political costs; in fact, it risks merely shifting the arena of transactions from the public sphere to a narrower and less visible space.
At this point, it is important to shift the focus of the debate from the election mechanism to the design of the implementation. If the goal is efficiency, then the relevant question is not who votes, but how the stages of the regional elections are designed to be simpler, more measurable, and more adaptive to technological developments.
From this point, the more urgent agenda is to simplify the stages. Many processes in regional elections still follow repetitive and layered administrative patterns, which consume a great deal of energy and budget. Efficiency can begin with the simplification of several stages in the election. For example, updating the voter list does not have to be sporadic and manual. Continuous integration of population data will make the process easier and more accurate.
In addition, voter socialization and education no longer need to rely on conventional methods that consume a lot of budget; a digital approach is more relevant to today’s communication patterns, so that the state does not have to bear the entire cost of campaign materials and tools. The same applies to the administrative verification stage, with a digital system integrated with relevant agencies, some processes can be cut without reducing the quality of supervision.
In the context of simplifying these stages, one of the most crucial points lies in the vote recapitulation process. Until now, manual recapitulation from polling stations to the district/city and provincial levels has been the most time-consuming, costly, and administratively energy-intensive stage. Therefore, the use of an electronic recapitulation system (e-recap) is important to consider seriously. In addition to speeding up the announcement of results, e-recap is also an instrument for cutting the long bureaucratic chain and reducing operational costs. Of course, it must be transparent and accountable.
With such measures, efficiency does not need to be achieved by transferring the regional elections to the Regional Representative Council (DPRD). What is needed is an overhaul of management and the design of the election process. Administrative reform is far more rational than reducing the sovereignty of the people.
Finally, as a reminder, in Animal Farm, what was initially removed was not ideals, but the space for participation. Decisions were centralized, reasons were made to seem reasonable, and efficiency was used as an excuse. Slowly, the animals no longer determined the direction; they simply accepted it.
Regional elections can be improved, the stages can be simplified, and costs can be reduced. But when direct votes are moved to a smaller space, it is not just the procedure that changes. What changes is the distance between the people and those in power.
And democracy, in the end, lives or dies by that distance. []
Ajid Fuad Muzaki
Researcher at the Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem)