JAKARTA - The proposal that the presidential candidate (capres) and vice presidential candidate (cawapres) must come from the cadre of political parties (parpol) is considered wrong. Instead of strengthening democracy, this discourse is considered to narrow the birth of leaders in the midst of a crisis of public trust in political parties.
The assessment was made by legal and political observer Pieter C Zulkifli in response to the proposal that the presidential and vice presidential candidates come from political parties. Pieter Zulkifli even considers the proposal to be dangerous for the country's democracy.
"The idea has the potential to narrow the birth space of alternative leaders in the midst of a crisis of public trust in political parties that have not yet been completed," said Pieter Zulkifli in his statement, Tuesday, May 12.
According to him, it is not without reason that the proposal is considered dangerous. Because, he said, the history of political parties so far has actually shown the prevalence of corruption practices. "When political parties actually become a field of corruption, the KPK's proposal that the presidential candidate must be a party cadre sounds ironic and dangerous," he said.
Pieter also revealed that the KPK's proposal that the presidential candidate, vice presidential candidate, and regional heads must come from political party cadres raised serious questions about the direction of Indonesian democracy. According to him, the idea that was launched in April 2026 was indeed wrapped with the intention of improving political governance and preventing corruption. However, behind this spirit, there is a fundamental question, namely whether party membership automatically guarantees the integrity of a leader.
"This question is important to ask because the history of Indonesian politics actually shows the opposite. Many regional heads, ministers, members of the DPR, to party elites who are entangled in corruption cases come from the party's kaderisasi process," he said.
"This means that corruption is not born because someone is outside the party, but because of the weak political system and supervision. In this context, the KPK's proposal feels like simplifying a big problem into just a matter of party membership cards," continued Pieter.
Pieter Zulkifli then quoted the British political philosopher, Lord Acton, who once reminded 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. Where power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. According to him, the quote is relevant to reading today's issues.
"The main problem of Indonesian democracy is not whether the leader comes from a party or non-party, but rather how power is monitored and limited," he said.
Pieter Zulkifli revealed that in the midst of this situation, Indonesian democracy is also facing another equally serious problem, namely the increasingly sharp social and political polarization. Society is slowly divided into groups with opposing views.
Not only that, he said, social media, digital algorithms, and political rhetoric that deliberately play on public emotions also deepen the gap. He said in many democratic countries, polarization is deliberately maintained to create tension between political groups in order to win mass support.
"As a result, public policy becomes difficult to run effectively, government stability is disrupted, and public confidence in political institutions continues to decline," he said.
Pieter said that in such conditions, populist politicians usually appear with anti-elite rhetoric while offering simple solutions to problems that are actually very complex. This kind of populist approach often ignores the basic principles of democracy, including respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Pieter Zulkifli also views that from regime to regime, Indonesia seems to still be hostage to the behavior of corrupt elites, arrogant power mentality, and hedonistic political lifestyles. Therefore, he views, the proposal to limit the nomination of leaders only to party cadres is at risk of narrowing the space for criticism and strengthening the dominance of the old elite.
"The Indonesian revolutionary figure Tan Malaka once said, 'They want people to be obedient, not smart, because smart people are hard to fool'. The quote feels relevant in the midst of political tendencies that are more busy regulating who can run than improving the quality of democracy itself," he said.
Pieter reminded that a healthy democracy should produce critical citizens and free to make choices, not narrow people's choices in the name of political stability. He also said that the KPK indeed had an argument that kaderisasi could strengthen political integrity and reduce the practice of political dowry.
In his study, said Pieter, the KPK even encouraged a revision of the Political Party Law so that the kaderisasi process would be a formal requirement for candidacy. However, this logic is problematic because it assumes that Indonesian political parties are healthy, democratic, and meritocratic. "In fact, most parties in Indonesia are still very personalistic and oligarchic," added Pieter.
Pieter explained that the reports of various survey institutions showed that the public's trust in political parties was consistently the lowest compared to other institutions. The Indonesian Political Indicator Survey in recent years has shown that public confidence in parties is often below 60 percent, far below the TNI or the president.
"This shows that there is a big psychological distance between the people and political parties," he explained.
Therefore, Pieter Zulkifli emphasized that making party cadres as the main requirement for candidacy has the potential to narrow democracy. He assessed that modern democracy should open as wide a space as possible for the best citizens, not even limiting access only to those who are in the party's elite circle.
He continued in the history of Indonesian politics, many figures were born outside the party structure but had strong public legitimacy, such as Joko Widodo (Jokowi), at the beginning of his appearance was not a national party elite. Likewise, Anies Baswedan is known to the public as more of an academic and technocrat before entering the electoral political arena. Democracy requires the possibility of the birth of such alternative figures.
"This is where the paradox of the KPK proposal lies. The institution that should focus on strengthening the anti-corruption system is actually getting too far into the territory of electoral political design. In fact, the main mandate of the KPK is to ensure that no one can abuse power. The public does not need the KPK as an 'architect of party kaderisasi', but as a guardian of state integrity," he said.
Pieter Zulkifli also quoted the French philosopher Montesquieu who once emphasized the importance of the separation of powers so that democracy does not turn into a veiled tyranny. In the context of Indonesia today, this principle can be translated as the prudence of state institutions so as not to exceed their constitutional mandate.
"When law enforcement agencies start to get too deep into the realm of practical politics, institutional boundaries become blurred," he said.
In addition to that, Pieter Zulkifli emphasized that criticism of the KPK's proposal does not mean rejecting the importance of party kaderisasi. On the contrary, Indonesia does need a healthy, transparent, and democratic political party.
"The party must be a school of leadership, not just a seasonal electoral vehicle. However, improvements should be made through internal party reform: transparency of political funding, internal democracy, limiting the elite oligarchy, and serious political education," he said.
Pieter Zulkifli said that the biggest problem of Indonesian political parties today is not the lack of kaderisasi alone, but the high cost of politics and the strong patronage of power. Transparency International data shows that Indonesia's Corruption Perception Index score in 2025 is still at 37.
He said that the figure showed that corruption was still a serious problem in national political governance. The solution is certainly not to limit the political rights of citizens, but to strengthen the system of supervision and accountability.
In the end, added Pieter, democracy should not be reduced to a monopoly of political parties. Democracy is an open space for competition of ideas, integrity, and capacity.
He also assessed that if only party cadres are allowed to become national leaders, then Indonesian democracy will slowly turn into an exclusive club for political elites. The KPK should be appreciated for having concerns about the poor political governance.
"However, this anxiety should not give birth to solutions that narrow democracy. Because, as the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle reminded us, the true purpose of politics is to create common good, not to maintain the privileges of a few groups," he concluded.
The English, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and French versions are automatically generated by the AI. So there may still be inaccuracies in translating, please always see Indonesian as our main language. (system supported by DigitalSiber.id)
