Pilkada Still Directly Elected by the People, the Government-DPR is Asked to Focus on Local Democracy Quality Reform

JAKARTA - Research Associate The Indonesian Institute (TII) Arfianto Purbolaksono said the government and the DPR need to focus on reforming the quality of local democracy after the Constitutional Court (MK) ruling on the local elections.

According to him, the decision number 195/PUU-XXIV/2026 provides legal certainty in the midst of strengthening the discourse on changing the mechanism of the regional election to be elected through the DPRD which has developed in recent times.

"The court confirms that the current system is the implementation of the principle of people's sovereignty as has been emphasized in various previous court decisions," he said as quoted by ANTARA, Wednesday, July 1.

In addition to providing legal certainty, he said the ruling also emphasized that strengthening local democracy must be carried out through improving the governance of elections, not by reducing the space for people's participation in determining their leaders.

Arfianto said the ruling pronounced on Monday (29/6) was in line with the results of the TII study entitled Policy Assessment 2026 which showed that the majority of the Indonesian people still want regional heads to be directly elected.

The study, he said, also found that the legitimacy of regional heads is not only determined by the aspect of constitutional legality, but also by public acceptance of the democratic process that provides space for direct participation.

In addition, he assessed that the argument linking direct elections with high political costs and corruption needs to be viewed more comprehensively.

"Historical experience shows that the practice of money politics also occurs when regional heads are elected through the DPRD, even with a more closed political transaction space among elites," he said.

For this reason, he assessed that the Constitutional Court's decision should be a turning point for the government and the DPR to shift the focus from debates on the mechanism of the election to improving the quality of implementation.

"The Election Bill in the future needs to be directed at strengthening election supervision, political financing transparency, enforcement of the law against political money, increasing the capacity of election organizers, and political education of the community so that the quality of local democracy will increase," said Arfianto.

Previously, the Constitutional Court stated that the application for a material test of Article 1 paragraph 1 of Law Number 8 of 2015 concerning the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors (Pilkada Law) was not acceptable.

The article stipulates that the election of regional heads is the implementation of the sovereignty of the people in the provincial and district/city areas to elect the governor and deputy governor, regent and deputy regent, and mayor and deputy mayor directly and democratically.

In their petition, four students named Vendy Setiawan, Lala Komalawati, Susi Lestari, and Afifah Nabila Putri questioned the phrase "directly" in the article in question.

According to the applicants, the article is multi-interpretable because there is no certainty of the norm that limits the phrase "directly" to be interpreted "by the people" through voting. Therefore, they asked for clarification that the election was only carried out directly by the people.

In the legal consideration, the Constitutional Court did not find actual or potential constitutional rights as alleged by the applicants.

According to the Court, the applicants' concerns about possible future changes in legal policy, political discourse, and academic anxiety are not a direct result of the applicability of Article 1 paragraph 1 of the Regional Head Election Law.

Because, according to the Court, until now, the Pilkada is still carried out directly by the people.

"The mechanism for the election of regional heads to date has been carried out directly by the people with reference to the general principles of elections, while still recognizing and respecting the special or special regional government units," the Constitutional Court considered.