Indonesia Electoral Review on Transparency and Women Representation

Khoirunnisa Nur Agustyati

Election System and Legal Framework

Indonesia has a complex election system. It is an extensive archipelago country with more than 204 million voters (204.807.222). Indonesia also holds five concurrent elections on the same day: the presidential election, the national House of Representatives, the Senate, the provincial House of Representatives, and the city/municipal House of Representatives.

The concurrent election was first held in 2019. Before the 2019 election, elections were held separately between legislative elections (DPR, Provincial DPRD, Regency/City DPRD, and DPD) and executive (presidential and vice-presidential). However, in 2013, there was a judicial review before the Constitutional Court, which requested that the elections be held simultaneously.

This concurrent election brought complexity not only to election management but also to voters and candidates. In the 2019 election, more than 800 election officers passed away because of the workload. The factor was not only the workload but also the pressure during the election. This situation happened because, in 2019, the competition was very tight, and political identity issues became a major issue that caused societal polarization. It affected the work of election commission officers.

The 2019 election also brought complexity for voters. The complexity could be seen from the invalid votes, especially for the National House of Representatives (DPR RI). More than 17 million votes were wasted, or around 11 percent, which is ironic since voter turnout was high at 81 percent.

The legislature proposed revising the election law only shortly after the 2019 election. However, this idea was terminated because the government was unwilling to revise the law. Therefore, the 2024 election used the same law as the previous election, Law No. 7/2017. The incentive for not modifying the election law is that all the stakeholders are already aware of the game's rules since it will be the same as the last election. On the other hand, so many loopholes in the legal framework would also be faced when organizing the election.

TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Holding elections in Indonesia presents several challenges, including those related to transparency and accountability and efforts to increase women's representation in parliament.

The electoral system used for legislative elections is an open-list proportional electoral system. So, on the ballot paper, there is a picture of a political party and a list of legislative members who can be elected directly by the people. With an election model like this, voters need comprehensive information to choose. In the 2024 election, there were at least around 200 thousand candidates spread across about 2,000 electoral districts competing for the national House of Representatives, the Senate, the provincial House of Representatives, and the city/municipality House of Representatives. Therefore, accurate and credible sources of data and information are necessary for voters.

There are at least several challenges faced in advocating and implementing open election data. First, the legal framework for election data disclosure must remain more robust. A stable legal framework is the basis for election organizers to carry out their duties. The election law in force today does not yet include openness of election data, so sometimes its implementation experiences problems because election organizers find it challenging to encourage open election data because there is no solid legal umbrella, especially when faced with information that is considered excluded or deemed to be personal data.

Second, it depends on the commitment of the election organizing members. Advocacy and implementation of open election data rely on the responsibility of members of the election organizers because they are the highest policymakers in their institutions. However, KPU members change every five years, so each period's commitment and perspective regarding election data transparency sometimes differ. The impact is that the process of advocating for election data openness is not sustainable because it often has to start from scratch when members of the election organizers change, especially if election data openness has yet to be institutionalized.

The third challenge is technical complexity, such as technology and human resource capacity. Technological infrastructure and human resources are essential elements in encouraging open election data. So that election data can be used, processed, and distributed for the broadest possible use by the public, a technological ecosystem is needed as a support. Technology and data center readiness, such as servers and routers, are needed. Moreover, the simultaneous five-box elections we adopt today will require significant infrastructure.
Fourth, election participants refuse to push for more transparent elections. It can be accepted that they still resist the openness of election data.

Transparency is one of the challenges in organizing elections because polemics regarding this matter have arisen at the beginning of the election stages. For example, during the verification of political parties participating in the election where, the media noted that there were political parties that should not have met the requirements to participate in the election but were passed by the General Election Commission. The election commission developed an information system for political party registration (SIPOL). Political parties that register with the KPU must upload files to the platform. Unfortunately, on this platform, the public does not get detailed information from political parties regarding the development of data. For example, when a political party is declared not to have met the requirements as a political party participating in an election, we cannot see where the party still needs to meet the requirements. One of the benefits of using technology in elections is that these technological devices must be able to make elections more transparent.

Another thing is information about legislative candidates. In previous elections, data regarding legislative candidate members could be accessed via the KPU website. The public can see the resume/CV of each legislative candidate. However, in this election, the KPU, in the interest of protecting personal data, gave legislative candidates the option to have their CVs/resumes published via the KPU website. This option causes many legislative candidates to prefer not to open their CVs on the KPU website. Therefore, what can be accessed by the public are legislative candidates who are only willing to be published.

The transparency of campaign funds is also one of the things to note when implementing this election. The KPU has a campaign finance reporting platform that election participants use to provide reports on their campaign funds. Campaign finance reports consist of three types: initial campaign fund reports, reports on receipt of campaign fund donations, and reports on receipt and expenditure of campaign funds. Election participants are required to have a particular campaign fund account registered with the KPU.
Perludem and Indonesian Corruption Watch monitor campaign finance reports. Our first findings show that election candidates, especially presidential candidates, still need to be more transparent in reporting the campaign finance report. KPU should open the initial campaign finance report in a more detailed format so that the public and Bawaslu can also oversee the campaign finance report deeply.

Another challenge is that the 2024 election campaign period is shorter than the 2019 election. It is only 75 days, from 28 November 2023 to 10 February 2024. Political parties and candidates had already participated in campaign activities long before the campaign period started. The problem is that the spending and donations for activities conducted before the campaign period started should have been recorded more transparently.

The regulations regarding campaign finance reporting regulated by election law are only limited to the campaign period. Both election participants and candidates have carried out campaign activities long before the campaign period begins. The impact is that all income and expenditure before the campaign period should have been recorded in the campaign finance report. Apart from that, no donations and spending before the campaign period are recorded through a particular campaign fund account. So, the public can not access political funds in a transparent report.

WOMEN REPRESENTATION

The affirmative action policy regulated in Article 245 of Law No. 7/2017 concerning Elections states, "The list of prospective candidates as intended in Article 243 contains at least 30% representation of women." This article must be interpreted to mean that political parties are obliged to nominate at least 30% of women in each electoral district. If these provisions are not met, political parties cannot nominate legislative candidates in that electoral district. This practice has been a reference since the 2014 and 2019 Election.

The affirmative action policy guaranteed by this law is subject to deviation from General Election Commission Regulation (PKPU) Number 10/2023, especially Article 8 paragraph 2 letter (a). This article contains provisions that allow political parties not to nominate 30% of women in electoral districts if calculating the 30% produces a fractional number after the decimal point that is less than 50. This article is contrary to Article 245 of the Election Law, which requires representation of Women to constitute "at least 30%" of women in each constituency.

This PKPU finally sparked resistance from civil society. The Coalition of Communities Concerned with Women's Representation then approached Bawaslu to provide recommendations to the KPU to revise the PKPU. It didn't stop there; the coalition finally took legal action through a judicial review at the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, in Decision Number 24 P/HUM/2023, decided that Article 8 paragraph (2) PKPU 10/2023 is contrary to the Election Law. As a consequence, the KPU should immediately make changes to this PKPU. However, after the Supreme Court's decision was issued, the KPU never revised it. The KPU was limited to giving a circular to political parties, which essentially conveyed a Supreme Court Decision regarding PKPU 10/2023, which impacted nominations and asked political parties to adjust their candidate lists based on the Supreme Court Decision.

The KPU's attitude is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision. In this regard, the DKPP, in decision Number 110-PKE-DKPP/IX/2023, has even issued sanctions, including a strong warning to the KPU chairman and warning sanctions to other KPU members.
The change in affirmation policy in PKPU can be said to be a form of violence against women in politics (VAWP). VAWP covers phenomena that undermine women in politics. The motivation of VAWP is not solely to create a partisan or unequal competition process. However, it aims to exclude women from politics (Krook, 2020). This KPU technical policy directly excludes women from candidacy because it clearly impacts the reduction of women competing in the 2024 elections.