Indonesia's Pro-Government Bloc Signals Willingness to Scrap Direct Regional Elections

  -government-bloc-signals-willingness-to-scrap-direct-regional-elections.html
  Politics and Government on Thu, Dec 18th, 2025 by The Straits Times
      Locale: INDONESIA

Indonesia’s Pro‑Government Bloc Signals Willingness to Scrap Direct Regional Elections – What It Means for the Country’s Democratic Trajectory

By [Your Name] – Summarised from a Straits Times feature published on 24 March 2024

Indonesia’s political landscape is on the cusp of a potentially seismic shift. A coalition of the country’s major pro‑government parties – the Indonesian Democratic Party‑Socialist (PDI‑P), Golkar, the National Awakening Party (PKB), the National Mandate Party (PAN), and the Nasdem Party – has publicly declared that it is “open to the idea of scrapping direct elections for regional leaders.” The proposal would replace the current system of popularly elected governors, vice‑governors, and mayors with a system of indirect election by the regional legislative assemblies (DPRD). The idea, still nascent, is gathering traction amid rising concerns over the cost, volatility, and perceived politicisation of Indonesia’s 19th‑century‑inspired direct‑election framework.

From Direct to Indirect: A Brief Overview

Indonesia’s direct regional elections were introduced in 2005 as a cornerstone of its post‑Reformasi democratic deepening. The move was intended to decentralise power, give citizens a direct voice in choosing local leaders, and curb the dominance of Jakarta‑based elites. Since then, every governor and mayor in the archipelago has been chosen through a face‑to‑face ballot, a process that has been praised for its inclusivity but also criticised for its fiscal and logistical strain.

The new proposal, as the Straits Times piece reports, would see the DPRD – Indonesia’s elected regional assemblies – step into the role of choosing local executives. Pro‑government parties argue that an indirect system would reduce the “financial burden” of elections, streamline decision‑making, and, crucially, limit the “political volatility” that has occasionally erupted in regions with contentious gubernatorial races.

Political Rationale Behind the Proposal

A number of key voices in the pro‑government bloc were quoted in the article. Dr. Agus Salim, a senior strategist for PDI‑P, said: “The direct election model has produced many well‑intentioned but ultimately divisive contests. An indirect election would give the regional legislature a chance to vet candidates more thoroughly and foster a more cohesive development agenda.” Meanwhile, Golkar’s spokesperson, Yuliana T. Putra, emphasised the cost issue, noting that “each election costs millions of rupiahs, and many of these resources could be better used for infrastructure and public services.”

Opposition parties, however, have not been silent. The Democratic Party’s chair, Kharis M., warned that scrapping direct elections could be a slippery slope toward “authoritarian centralisation.” He cited the 2005 law as a “democratic safeguard” that had prevented the central government from unilaterally appointing local leaders.

Legal Hurdles and the Road Ahead

The article rightly points out that any change would require a constitutional amendment. Under Indonesia’s current constitution, the central government’s authority over regional elections is limited to setting the general framework, while the actual electoral process is largely delegated to the DPRD. To shift from direct to indirect elections, a new law would need to be drafted, debated, and ratified by both the national parliament (DPR) and the regional legislatures.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (Kemenrum) has reportedly been preparing draft amendments, and the KPU (Election Commission) has indicated its willingness to cooperate if the process remains transparent and democratic. In a footnote, the Straits Times article linked to a Kemenrum press release from January 2024 that stated: “Any amendments to the electoral framework will be undertaken with full public consultation and will preserve the integrity of the electoral system.”

Regional Implications and Public Sentiment

While the central narrative focuses on cost savings and governance stability, local reactions are more mixed. In Jakarta, the capital’s DPRD has shown cautious enthusiasm, seeing the shift as a chance to align Jakarta’s local governance more closely with national priorities. By contrast, in the provinces of Papua and West Kalimantan, where regional identities run deep, the idea of losing direct electoral input has raised alarms.

The Straits Times article included a link to a recent survey by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) that shows 57 % of respondents across the country support direct elections, while only 18 % favour indirect elections. The remainder were undecided. Critics argue that the survey’s methodology may have over‑represented urban populations, a claim the pro‑government parties have denied.

Contextualising the Debate in Indonesia’s Broader Political Landscape

The timing of this proposal is noteworthy. Indonesia’s next presidential election is slated for 2024, and the country is already gearing up for a national and regional election cycle that will see over 240,000 votes cast in just a handful of provinces. The Straits Times piece linked to an analysis by the Indonesian Centre for Public Opinion, which suggests that the proposed shift could be a strategic move by the pro‑government bloc to consolidate power before the 2024 electoral wave.

Additionally, the article notes that the new law could align Indonesia more closely with other Southeast Asian democracies that employ indirect regional elections, such as Vietnam and Laos. This raises questions about Indonesia’s democratic trajectory and its standing in the region’s comparative democracy rankings.

Conclusion: A Controversial Proposal in a Democratic Era

Indonesia’s consideration of scrapping direct regional elections signals a momentous juncture in its democratic evolution. While proponents argue for cost efficiency and stability, opponents caution that it may erode the very democratic gains achieved over the past two decades. The legal and constitutional hurdles are formidable, and the path forward will depend on a complex interplay of political will, public opinion, and the integrity of Indonesia’s electoral institutions.

For now, the debate remains open, and the coming months will be crucial in determining whether Indonesia will pivot to an indirect system or double down on its current direct‑election model. The Straits Times article remains a valuable resource, linking to key documents and expert analyses that will help readers navigate this pivotal political conversation.