Scrapping direct regional elections in Indonesia shifts power to elites, analysts warn

JAKARTA – Indonesia looks set to move towards a major rollback of one of its most visible democratic safeguards: the public’s right to choose regional leaders.

The country’s Parliament is

considering ending direct elections for governors, mayors and regents

, known as pilkada, which analysts said would shift power away from voters and back into the hands of political elites.

Support for the move runs deep within President Prabowo Subianto’s ruling coalition, including the Democratic Party, historically associated with democratic reform under its founder, former president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Of the eight parties in the coalition, only the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) has openly opposed the proposal, leaving Parliament broadly aligned behind a return to indirect elections.

Direct regional elections, introduced nationwide in 2005, were a cornerstone of Indonesia’s Reformasi agenda after three decades of the late strongman Suharto’s New Order, when local leaders were selected by legislatures. The reform was designed to strengthen regional autonomy and hold leaders accountable to voters rather than parties.

Mr Prabowo has framed the proposed reversal as a practical solution to cut the cost of elections and reduce vote buying. Direct elections, he argues, favour candidates with deep pockets, while indirect polls would be more cost-effective and less prone to corruption.

That argument has gained traction among political parties, but not with the public. A Litbang Kompas survey released on Jan 12 found that 77.3 per cent of respondents preferred to retain direct elections. Nearly half cited democracy and public participation as the main reason, while 35.5 per cent said the system produces more capable leaders. Only 5.6 per cent supported having regional leaders chosen by legislatures.

The poll surveyed 510 respondents across 76 cities in all 38 provinces.

Formal parliamentary deliberations are not expected until mid-year, but analysts said the outcome is clear: it points towards a return to indirect elections. Behind closed doors, negotiations reflect a familiar tension in Indonesian politics: the priorities of party elites seeking tighter control versus voters’ demands for accountability and democratic participation.

Elite consolidation, accountability risks

Political analyst Arya Fernandes from the Jakarta-based think-tank Centre for Strategic and International Studies said the proposal is driven more by political convenience than by efforts to improve governance.

“Several parties support this because it allows them to control who gets elected and makes politics more predictable, with regions effectively divided among parties,” he told The Straits Times.

There is some truth to the claim that direct regional elections are costly. Campaigns often involve extensive ground operations across large constituencies, including rallies, advertising, logistics and volunteer mobilisation. Weak enforcement of campaign finance rules and limited public funding also mean that candidates rely heavily on private money, while parties frequently demand informal fees for nominations.

However, analysts said these problems stem from party practices, weak regulation and poor enforcement, not from the act of direct voting itself. From this perspective, the proposal is less a reform than a consolidation of power.

Abolishing direct elections would not solve the problems that the government claims to be addressing. Instead, the rollback would move corruption behind closed doors, the analysts said. Regional heads chosen by legislatures would be accountable primarily to lawmakers, increasing the risk of collusion and money politics.

Mr Kahfi Adlan Hafiz, programme manager and researcher at election and democracy watchdog Perludem, said the proposal risks reviving New Order-era patterns of patronage and clientelism.

“Local communities would no longer be able to determine their own leaders who understand local issues such as traffic congestion, damaged roads or licensing that harms the environment,” he told ST.

Elections conducted through legislatures carry greater corruption risks because regional heads would be accountable only to local councils, Mr Kahfi said.

“This increases the risk of collusion, which ultimately leads to corruption between regional heads and local legislatures that hold budgetary and oversight powers,” he added.

Ms Almas Sjafrina, acting coordinator at Indonesia Corruption Watch, said that the institutional consequences would be significant.

“This would alter the roles and relationships between regional executives and regional legislatures,” she said. “Checks and balances would be increasingly minimal due to high electoral dependence.”

She warned that weakened oversight would have direct consequences for governance. “When checks and balances are not built, corruption in policymaking and regional budget management will clearly increase.”

Dr Arya said the broader political cost would be a further erosion of trust in Parliament and political parties.

“The public would lose the opportunity to give reward and punishment to regional heads if elections are conducted via local legislatures,” he said, noting that lawmakers often lack autonomy and tend to follow central party directives. In such systems, he added, money politics has historically been high, while voters have no direct mechanism to hold leaders accountable.

Dr Titi Anggraini, a constitutional law lecturer at the University of Indonesia, described the proposal as a clear democratic regression.

“It removes the most basic mechanism of accountability, namely the direct relationship between voters and regional leaders,” she said.

“Ultimately, abolishing direct regional elections is not a reformist solution, but a shortcut that risks damaging the foundations of local democracy,” she said. “The challenges of political costs and corruption must be addressed through legal and institutional improvements, not by sacrificing the people’s right to vote.”

Democrats break with tradition

The Democratic Party’s backing of the proposal has drawn particular scrutiny. Long known as a defender of direct elections, the party supported an emergency regulation issued by Dr Yudhoyono in 2014 to block an earlier attempt to transfer selection powers to local councils.

Describing the current shift as “very disappointing”, Mr Kahfi said it represents a sharp break from the party’s democratic legacy.

Dr Arya offered a more pragmatic explanation, pointing to coalition discipline rather than ideological change. As part of the ruling bloc, he said, the party faces pressure to align with the President’s position.

Dr Titi similarly argued that short-term political calculations, aimed at preserving influence within the Prabowo-led coalition, appear to outweigh democratic principle.

Opposing the proposal, PDI-P chairwoman Megawati Soekarnoputri said: “Indirect regional head elections contravene popular sovereignty and the spirit of the 1998 Reform movement, and, most fundamentally, take away the people’s democratic right to directly determine their own leaders.”

The party argued that indirect polls would erode local democracy and undermine constitutional guarantees. Instead of abolishing direct polls, Ms Megawati urged alternative reforms to curb election costs, including e-voting, stricter enforcement against vote buying, campaign spending limits, and the use of professional, high-integrity election organisers.

The debate has gained urgency after 2025’s Constitutional Court decisions reshaped electoral rules, including a requirement for separate ballots for presidential and regional elections from 2029.

Analysts said the rulings have refocused attention on election law and added momentum to elite efforts to redesign the system before new Bills are formally introduced, raising broader questions about citizens’ right to choose their leaders.

Ms Almas said: “If that right is revoked, the people would no longer be decision-makers, but merely recipients of elite decisions.”