Rezim Silih Berganti, Ide Pilkada DPRD Tetap Abadi

JAKARTA - Without realizing it, it has been 21 years that the Indonesian people have enjoyed a democracy festival to directly choose leaders. The year 2005 can be called a historic milestone when for the first time the public can directly choose their respective regional heads. Yes, after 2004 the people directly elected the president and vice president, the following year the public can directly choose in the implementation of the regional head election (pilkada) which was previously carried out by the Regional Representative Council (DPRD) both levels I and II.

As we know, from the Old Order to the New Order, the election was carried out through the central government represented by the Minister of Home Affairs. However, when the Old Order, this kind of election did not last long, because the regime was quickly ousted. In fact, in the New Order, the election through the DPRD is running and there is an attempt to centralize power.

Muhtar Haboddin, in his book entitled "Dynamics of Local Elections and Local Democracy in Indonesia" revealed that regional heads in the New Order era were dominated by the military rather than professionals. The central government determines who can become a regional head. Although the election is through the DPRD, but the intervention from the central government is evident through the Golkar and military representatives in each regional parliament.

According to Muhtar, for authoritarian political regimes, the implementation of elections is only to gain public sympathy or political opponents. They want to show that the leadership at that time was democratic because it routinely held elections. This way of thinking is commonly found in some Latin America and some Southeast Asian countries. "Political regimes try to capitalize on elections to gain political legitimacy from the public. This politicization of elections leads to the dilution of the meaning of procedural democracy," he said.

The mechanism of the DPRD Pilkada fell after the 1998 Reformasi. Precisely in 2005, the direct election by the people began to be implemented. Unfortunately, the DPRD Pilkada is like a fictional character from Scotland, namely Highlander who is a knight with eternal life. Yes, just like Highlander, the idea of the DPRD Pilkada is still eternal even though the ruling regime in Indonesia keeps changing.

In 2014, six political parties that were members of the Red and White Coalition, namely Golkar, PKS, PAN, PPP, and Gerindra, wanted the mechanism of the regional election to return through the DPRD. This was attempted to be realized during the discussion and decision-making on the revision of the Regional Election Law in the plenary meeting. Only PDI Perjuangan, PKB, and Hanura maintained the direct election by the people. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party's vote was split, although most of them still wanted the regional election to be in the hands of the people.

The ratification meeting was intense until it was decided to vote. The Red and White Coalition, which supported the Prabowo Subianto and Hatta Radjasa pair in the 2014 presidential election, also won with 226 votes so that the election was decided again through the DPRD. Prabowo in a separate place appreciated this.

However, all did not last long. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono immediately issued two Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) in line with the massive rejection and demonstration of the public. First, Perppu Number 1 of 2014 concerning the Election of Governors, Regents and Mayors. This Perppu revokes Law Number 22 of 2014 which regulates the election of regional heads by the DPRD. Second, Perppu Number 2 of 2014 concerning the Amendment to Law Number 24 of 2014 concerning Regional Government. This Perppu removes the duties and authority of the DPRD to choose regional heads.

Eleven years later, in 2025, the idea of the DPRD Pilkada reappeared. The large budget in the implementation and political costs that continue to swell is the reason for political parties. Secretary General of the Gerindra Party, Sugiono, revealed that the grant funds from the APBD for the 2015 election reached almost Rp. 7 trillion. Even in 2024, the election budget jumped drastically to more than Rp. 37 trillion.

"That is a number that can be used for other things that are more productive, efforts to improve the welfare and economy of the people. I think this is something we need to consider," he said.

The high political cost is also claimed to make it difficult for competent candidates to advance in the nomination because of finances. Therefore, with consideration of efficiency, both the process, mechanism, and budget, the Gerindra Party supports the plan to hold the election through the DPRD. Support was also thrown by other political parties such as the Golkar Party, the NasDem Party, the National Awakening Party, to the National Mandate Party.

DPRD Pilkada, Retreat to Jump Ahead

So, is the DPRD Pilkada a 'haram goods' that must be rejected? Rector of Indo Global Mandiri University, Marzuki Alie admitted that the election has always been a public debate, whether it should be directly chosen by the people or through the DPRD. This debate is often positioned in black and white, as if direct elections are synonymous with democracy, while elections through the DPRD are considered a setback. In fact, if examined constitutionally and empirically, the issue is much more complex.

From the constitutional point of view, both directly and through the DPRD are constitutional. The Constitution does not explicitly require regional heads to be directly elected by the people. The people can use their sovereignty directly, or through a representative mechanism by electing members of the DPRD who are then mandated to choose regional heads. Both are valid and do not conflict with the principle of a democratic state.

"Thus, the choice of the pilkada model is an open legal policy that forms laws, which can be adjusted to the needs of democracy, the effectiveness of local government, and the national socio-political conditions," said Marzuki.

According to him, the next issue is not about legality or illegality, democracy or not, but about effectiveness, political costs, and its impact on governance and people's welfare. Because, the reality on the ground shows that direct elections involve many interests and very large costs.

The 2009-2014 period House of Representatives chairman assessed that with such a large political cost, it is almost impossible for regional heads to work honestly and faithfully without the pressure of retribution. Meanwhile, for the people, most of them only have repeated hopes and never materialize from one period to the next. This condition gives birth to public pessimism. The relationship between the people and the leader also becomes unhealthy: when in power, the leader extorts the people; afterwards, the people feel entitled to extort their leaders.

Departing from this reality, continued Marzuki, maintaining direct elections solely in the name of democracy and the mandate of reform is questionable. Improving the welfare and educating the public takes a long time. As long as the people are still poor and not educated enough, quality elections will be difficult to achieve. Imposing direct elections in this condition is like enforcing a wet thread.

Meanwhile, the Pilkada through the DPRD offers an alternative. The alternative is not free of corruption, but involves a much smaller number of people, so it is easier to monitor. All DPRD members can be closely monitored, communication can be restricted, and informal meetings can be controlled. The interests of the party elite are inevitable, but within limits.

In addition, political harmony between regional heads and the central government has the potential to facilitate the course of government. We have experienced a situation where regional heads refuse to carry out presidential policies solely because of party differences, on the grounds of being subject to the orders of their political parties.

"If you have to choose, I think that Indonesia needs to reconsider the election of the people, while seriously improving the quality of democracy. When we can return to direct elections with much better quality of democracy. Taking a step back does not mean anti-democracy. It can be a strategy to jump further ahead," said Marzuki.

Mixed Elections, a Moderate Solution to the Debate

Former Constitutional Court (MK) Chairman Mahfud MD emphasized that the public did not want regional heads to be elected through the DPRD because it had the potential to be a step backwards for democracy. According to him, this idea reappeared in line with the Constitutional Court's decision to separate the national and local elections with a 2.5-year gap. "If this MK decision is dismantled, can we now just not have direct elections? We don't want that to happen. Maybe it will happen. Maybe it will be a setback for democracy," he said.

He admitted that the DPRD Pilkada was actually not in conflict with the constitution. Because, the MK's decision only regulates the separation of the time of national and local elections, not the method of election. Whether directly elected or through the DPRD, it is entirely the political decision of the law-makers.

However, this political choice could trigger serious dynamics if the elite is not mature enough in dealing with it. The debate about direct or indirect is not considered a mere technical matter, but concerns the direction of democracy. Therefore, the most realistic step at this time is to immediately start discussing the revision of the Law on Elections and Regional Head Elections. "The revision process needs to be accelerated so that the discourse on the electoral system for regional heads has enough mature space and time. So that later when we discuss we are all ready," said Mahfud.

On the other hand, Citra Institute political observer Yusak Farchan assessed that the implementation of the mixed election model could be a middle ground or a compromise solution to the debate between direct elections or through the DPRD.

He revealed that the spirit of changing the pattern of the election was actually aimed at ensuring that development in various regions could run in line with the national development vision carried out by the central government.

However, the change in the pilkada system in the future must still prioritize the principle of popular sovereignty as the main foundation of a democratic state. "If the government and the DPR as law makers dare to cross the political rights of the people, then the potential for political instability will be very open," said Yusak.

Therefore, the government and the DPR must respond to the polemics related to the election of governors, regents, and mayors by the DPRD wisely and wisely. According to him, what is needed at this time is a formulation that is able to bridge the interests of the government, political party elites, and the aspirations of the people. "Well, to bridge the desires of the government, party elites, and the people, then it needs to be considered a moderate option," continued Yusak.

He said that the implementation of a mixed election model in which the election of regional heads at the district/city level is still carried out directly by the people, while the provincial level or gubernatorial election can be carried out through the DPRD or involve the central government could be a moderate option.

Through the mixed local election model, continued Yusak, the harmony of national and regional development can be realized without sacrificing the principle of people's sovereignty. "This option can be a middle ground to avoid political deadlock while preventing potential unrest in society," he added.