KPK Chairman Does Not Agree with DPRD Election: The Risk of Power Transactions is Getting Bigger!

JAKARTA - The Chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Setyo Budiyanto said the election of regional heads (Pilkada) through the DPRD presents a concentration of power. He disagreed if this mechanism was enforced.

This was conveyed by Setyo in a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) entitled 'Pilkada Through the DPRD-Questioning the High Cost of Politics' with the Golkar Party Faction in Room 25 Floor 11 of the Nusantara I building of the DPR/MPR complex, Senayan, Central Jakarta, Thursday, February 5.

"Decision-making is in the commission room, the faction room, the DPRD room, and the court room. According to us, this is an even greater risk of power transactions," said Setyo as quoted from the agency's official written statement, Friday, February 6.

Setyo said this power transaction would make the risk of hidden corruption higher. Because, the mechanism of the Pilkada through the DPRD is like an inverted pyramid which means that a handful of elites in the commission room, faction, and court room determine the fate of millions of people.

This condition, continued Setyo, creates the risk of state capture corruption so that it paralyzes the function of supervision or check and balances because the regional head feels indebted to the DPRD, not the people.

"I say here, as long as monopoly and discretion are high while accountability is low, corruption will continue to recur regardless of the pilkada system," said Setyo.

Moreover, Setyo said, the root of the corruption problem of regional heads is high-cost politics that triggers political donations to donors. "The direct election is not immune to corruption, but it provides a much stronger public correction space," said the former Director of KPK Investigation.

Meanwhile, Djohermansyah Djohan as an academician of the Indonesian Regional Autonomy said that this condition should be a space for political parties to review the Pilkada option.

Djohan highlighted the constitutional gap regarding the phrase "democratically elected" in the law (UU) which can be interpreted differently from the presidential election which must be directly chosen by the people.

"So it should be called directly by the people. But it is said to be democratically elected," he concluded at the same event.