The Pilkada debate should be about the implementation of governance and regional autonomy.

Illustration - The implementation of the Pilkada model should consider the concept of governance and regional autonomy. (Photo: Special)

JAKARTA - Political observer at Paramadina University, Septa Dinata, said that the debate regarding the Pilkada system should not only be on the issue of direct or indirect elections, or the cost of politics.

According to him, the debate should be drawn to a more fundamental issue, namely the design of government governance and the concept of regional autonomy that has been implemented so far. Because, both the local elections and the general election are downstream parts of the overall design of state governance.

"This issue must be seen and drawn to a more fundamental problem, namely governance and regional autonomy design. Elections are actually downstream from the design of the chosen governance," said Septa, Friday, January 2.

He assessed that the practice of the Pilkada has often created confusion among the public regarding the accountability of regional leadership, which is known as diffused accountability.

Therefore, if the solution is only to replace the mechanism of the election, old problems such as money politics have the potential to recur.

Septa emphasized that the root of the Pilkada problem is structural, ranging from political funding, patronage culture, weak law enforcement, to the high cost of political competition.

Without improvements in these sectors, transactional practices are at risk of moving from voters to political elites.

Thus, the solution needed is not by cutting democracy, but by rearranging the design of regional autonomy in a consistent and non-layered manner.

He revealed that there were two alternative designs that the government and the DPR could consider.

First, if autonomy is focused at the provincial level, then only the governor is directly elected, while the districts/cities are administrative.

Second, if autonomy is at the district/city level, then the regent and mayor are directly elected, while the governor is appointed by the president with limited authority as a representative of the central government.

"With this design, democracy is still maintained, the number of elections is reduced, and governance becomes clearer and more accountable. This design makes the public not confused at what level collective accountability must be held accountable through elections," said Septa.