Rise and Fall of Democracy in Regional Government: From Assignment to Election

Indonesia has been trying to develop democracy since the early independence. Assignment of the head of the region conducted from 1945 to 1999. After the big reformation in 1999, which started in 2004, Indonesia started a new chapter with the direct election model for regional heads. This research tries to find the philosophy of Indonesia’s choice to select its regional leader according to the law provided. The research is normative research with a conceptual and comparative approach. The results show that the election of regional leaders in Indonesia has not always been in line with the sovereignty of the people and the concept of democracy. Political choice has had a very significant impact. However, as it turns out into practice, as an emerging country in South East Asia, even though an assignment and not by the general election, leaders or regional heads are also considered as democratic as long as it is still on the path of openness, fair game and also according to people’s approval, including if it comes from the regional representative’s choice of candidates.

Introduction

Regional heads in Indonesia are positions that have experienced changes in the way they are determined since the beginning of independence. Throughout early independence regional heads in Indonesia were appointed by the central government in accordance with the guided democracy implemented by President Sukarno. In the course of constitutional development, people’s sovereignty has been the subject of discussions when we discuss of modern state.[1]Popular sovereignty is the life blood of every modern state and is the ammunition to strengthen democracy. Democracy itself, comes from the word’s demos and kratos, which mean the people rule or government by the people. UNESCO also concluded that the idea of democracy is considered ambiguous or has several meanings regarding the institutions or methods used to implement the idea regarding cultural and historical conditions that influences the terms ideas and practices of democracy.[2]

Tomassoli,[3]also describe that if considered not solely an instrument of the government but as a rule to which the entire society, including the government, is bound, the rule of law is fundamental in advancing democracy. Koffi Annan[4]also describe that the Rule of Law is a millennia old principal referring to the way by which states are governed. As compared with Rule by Law, where the government uses the law to govern and is considered to be above the law, Rule of Law means that all entities, including the government, must adhere to the supremacy of the law. The Rule of Law is a nearly a universal value, and the United Nations General Assembly regularly identifies “human rights, the rule of law and democracy” as universal and indivisible values of the United Nations. The Rule of Law plays a key role in promoting peaceful, just, and inclusive societies and ensuring sustainable development.

There is more than just one method to fill the positions as regional leaders in Indonesia, and each have their own legal bases.[5]The dynamics and diversity of the Regional Head Election models indicate the dynamism of the government’s thinking in explaining the model of filling regional head positions, marked by the emergence of regulations before the amendment of the 1945 Constitution, as well as the interpretation of the meaning of “democratic” in Article 18 paragraph (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia which gave birth to legislation related to Regional Head Elections post-reform, along with the formation of special laws that further regulate Regional Head Elections in a specific region in Indonesia.

In line with the development of Indonesian statehood, during the Suharto’s administration, the method for determining regional heads whether regents, mayor, governors was implemented differently. In the filling of regional leadership positions in Indonesia, there have been several models of regional leader selection along with the changes or revisions of laws and regulations concerning regional governance.[6]

The direct election of regional leaders in Indonesia has been held since the enactment of Law No. 32 of 2004 concerning Regional Governance. Before the implementation of this regulation, the selection of regional leaders was conducted through appointment by the central government under Law No. 5 of 1974, and later through the Regional People’s Representative Council (DPRD) under Law No. 22 of 1999. Hutapea mentions that the election of regional leaders in Indonesia has been a dynamic process since the Dutch East Indies era.[7]

With the emergence of reform in 1998, Indonesia began moving towards democratization by striving for more democratic regional leadership elections. This started with the determination that regional leaders would no longer be appointed by the central government as practiced during the New Order government, but rather elected by the Regional Representative Council (DPRD) resulting from direct and multi-party general elections in each region.

The subsequent era of regional leadership elections involves the implementation of simultaneous regional elections). Simultaneous regional elections are an effort to create local accountability, political equity, and local responsiveness. Consequently, democratization at the local level is closely related to the level of participation and power relations built on the principle of popular sovereignty. Moreover, the results of regional elections should lead society towards better social, political, and economic conditions. A good regional election will give rise to good governance. Regional elections that are conducted more professionally and democratically will have a tangible impact on political change.[8]

The plan to conduct simultaneous regional elections is taken as a political reform effort to address the demands for efficiency and effectiveness in election administration. It is expected that eventually there will only be two forms of elections in Indonesia: National Elections for the legislative and presidential/vice-presidential levels, and local elections to elect Governors/Vice Governors, Regents/Vice Regents, and Mayors/Vice Mayors, which will be held simultaneously for efficiency. As it is known, the repeated elections in each region have been considered to significantly affect the finances of both the state and the regions, as well as due to the proliferation of election disputes and regional elections that ultimately end up in the Constitutional Court. Direct regional elections, which drain the energy, thoughts, and finances of the people that must be allocated for the conduct of very large-scale regional elections, immediately drain budget allocations that could have been allocated for more pressing public needs, such as poverty, health, unemployment, and education issues[9]. This poses a dilemma for the enforcement of democracy, where direct regional elections represent an improvement in democracy, but on the other hand,