The use of private jets by a number of members of the General Elections Commission (KPU) during 59 official trips in the run-up to the 2024 general election has once again highlighted a fundamental issue: the integrity of the election organisers. In its ruling, the DKPP imposed a severe warning. The DKPP found that the use of these facilities was not entirely consistent with the reasons given.
The justification for monitoring the distribution of logistics to 3T regions (remote, frontier, and outermost) was inconsistent. A number of trips were actually to commercial destinations such as Bali and Kuala Lumpur. This case has not only sparked criticism regarding the waste of state funds amounting to tens of billions of rupiah. More than that, it reveals a problematic perspective on public accountability.
This incident is not an isolated case. Since the early stages of the 2024 General Election, the public has been confronted with controversy over the verification of political parties. There are allegations of manipulation of factual verification data that allowed parties failing to meet the requirements to pass. This series of events demonstrates one thing: integrity issues are systemic and recurring.
Accumulation of Violations: from Procedural to Personal
Violations also occurred at the leadership level. The then KPU Chair, Hasyim Asy’ari, was subjected to ethical sanctions on several occasions. His cases ranged from personal relationships deemed inappropriate in the context of power dynamics, to personal ties with party leaders that had no institutional relevance.
At the same time, other KPU members also faced sanctions. They approved Gibran Rakabuming’s nomination as a vice-presidential candidate prior to the issuance of the KPU Regulation following the Constitutional Court’s ruling, which adjusted the age requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Added to this are the cases involving a private jet and the manipulation of political party verification for registration as election participants; it is evident that violations have occurred across multiple dimensions simultaneously: procedural, administrative, and personal ethics.
This accumulation demonstrates that the issue of integrity is multidimensional. It is not merely a matter of legal compliance, but also of the ethics of power and public responsibility. When violations occur on so many fronts, it is difficult to claim that this is merely a matter of individual error.
Unimpartial Selection as the Root of the Problem
The low level of integrity among election organisers cannot be separated from the institutional design, particularly in the process of selecting commissioners. From the outset, this process has been characterised by a tug-of-war of political interests. This situation creates scope for conflicts of interest even before the institution is formed. Consequently, the selection process is not entirely geared towards finding independent figures, but rather has the potential to reproduce political dependence.
This problem stems from Law No. 7 of 2017 on Elections, which has yet to undergo a comprehensive review. The 2022 selection process serves as a clear example. The composition of the selection panel was unbalanced, with an excessive dominance of government representatives—a situation that should have been restricted. At the same time, the chair of the selection panel was filled by a figure with strong political affiliations. This not only creates a perception of bias but also risks influencing the collective decision-making of the selection panel.
This combination opens the door to extensive intervention. Political actors have greater access to the selection panel. Lobbying, ‘favouritism’ and political compromises become difficult to avoid. In such a situation, the principle of meritocracy is not entirely lost, but shifts into a mere formality that does not determine the final outcome.
The problems did not stop at the initial design. During the implementation phase, the selection process also revealed serious irregularities. Transparency, which should have served as a tool for public oversight, was severely limited. The results of competency tests, such as the Computerised Assisted Test (CAT), were not made public. Yet this information is vital for objectively assessing the candidates’ capabilities and quality.
Furthermore, there are indications that the names of candidates had already been ‘determined’ before the fit and proper test in the House of Representatives took place. This phenomenon reinforces the suspicion that the selection process is not entirely based on capacity and integrity, but is also influenced by political preferences and specific affiliations. In this context, meritocracy remains in place procedurally, but loses its substantive meaning.
When the recruitment process lacks credibility, the results are also difficult to trust. The integrity of election officials is not established whilst they are carrying out their duties, but rather from the very start of the selection process. If this stage is already problematic, the potential for violations in subsequent stages becomes all the greater.
The Urgency of the Electoral Bill
This situation underscores the importance of debating the Electoral Bill as a means of structural reform. Reform is necessary, particularly in the design of the selection process for electoral administrators. Without fundamental changes, it will be difficult to establish institutions that are truly independent, accountable and of integrity.
Delaying the discussion of the Election Bill only increases the risks. In the near future, the selection process for members of the KPU and Bawaslu for the next term will begin. If the same legal framework is still used, then patterns that have proven problematic will be repeated. In other words, the same system will continue to produce actors with the same vulnerabilities.
However, this urgency must be accompanied by a concrete reform design, particularly in improving the selection mechanism for election administrators. The selection panel mechanism must be retained, but it must be redesigned. The appointment of selection panel members must involve not only the President, but also the House of Representatives and the Constitutional Court, with a composition of independent, professional members, and a mandatory minimum of 30% female representation. The involvement of these three branches of government is crucial to creating stronger checks and balances. Thus, no single actor will dominate the selection outcome.
At the same time, the fit and proper test stage in the House of Representatives needs to be seriously evaluated, and even considered for abolition. In practice, this stage often becomes a space for political negotiations that is difficult to monitor. Rather than serving as a forum for substantive assessment, the process frequently determines the final outcome on political grounds.
By removing this stage, the selection process can focus more on assessments based on capacity, integrity and track record. This reform is essential to ensure that the selection process truly produces independent and professional administrators.
The Path to Electoral Authoritarianism
The experience of the 2024 elections offers an important lesson. When the integrity of the electoral authorities weakens, elections no longer function as a democratic mechanism that guarantees fair competition. Instead, they can become an instrument for consolidating totalitarian power.
The erosion of electoral administrators’ integrity creates space for the regression of democracy. In the long term, this situation may foster the emergence of authoritarian practices in electoral form. Democracy continues to function procedurally, but loses the substance of justice and equal competition.
Postponing the discussion of the Election Bill, in this context, is not a neutral decision. Such a postponement risks perpetuating a problematic institutional design. It also opens the door to a repeat of non-impartial selection processes, which will ultimately result in election administrators who are again lacking in integrity.
If reforms are not implemented immediately, future elections will merely repeat the same problems. The consequences are not merely technical, but touch upon the very legitimacy of democracy. Public trust will continue to decline.
The Election Bill must be viewed as a corrective instrument. It is not merely a legislative agenda, but an urgent necessity to repair the foundations of democracy. Without the courage to overhaul the electoral system and strengthen institutional independence, Indonesia risks drifting further away from the principles of free, fair and credible elections. []
KAHFI ADLAN HAFIZ
Researcher at the Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem)
