The Tamesis
President Prabowo Subianto’s ruling coalition, including the Democratic Party, which has historically been associated with democratic reforms under former President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the founder of the Democratic Party, expressed deep support for the move. Of the eight parties in the coalition government, only the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) has publicly opposed the proposal, which has led to widespread support in parliament for the return of indirect elections.
Direct regional elections introduced nationwide in 2005 were a cornerstone of Indonesia’s reform agenda three decades after the late strongman Suharto’s New Order, in which local leaders were chosen by the legislature. The reforms are aimed at strengthening regional autonomy and making leaders accountable to voters rather than political parties.
Mr Prabowo sees the proposed reversal as a practical solution to cutting election costs and reducing vote buying. He argued that direct elections favored candidates with deep pockets, while indirect polls were more cost-effective and less prone to corruption.
This argument gained traction among political parties but not among the public. A survey released by Litbang Kompas on January 12 found that 77.3% of respondents preferred to retain direct elections. Nearly half cited democracy and public participation as the main reason, while 35.5% said the system produced more capable leaders. Only 5.6% support having regional leaders elected by the legislative body.
The poll surveyed 510 respondents in 76 cities across 38 provinces across the country.
Formal parliamentary deliberations are not expected until mid-year, but analysts said the results were clear: It suggested a return to indirect elections. The closed-door 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 integration, accountability risk
Alia Fernandez, a political analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Jakarta, said the proposal was more about political convenience than an effort to improve governance.
“Some political parties support this because it allows them to control who is elected and makes politics more predictable, with regions effectively divided between parties,” he told The Straits Times.
There is some truth to the argument that direct regional elections are costly. Campaigns typically involve extensive ground operations across large constituencies, including rallies, advertising, logistics and volunteer mobilization. Poor enforcement of campaign finance rules and limited public funding also means candidates rely heavily on private funding, while parties often demand informal nomination fees.
However, analysts say the problems stem from party practices, weak oversight and poor enforcement, rather than the direct act of voting itself. From this perspective, the proposal is less a reform than a consolidation of power.
Abolition of direct elections will not solve the problem the government claims to solve. Instead, analysts say, the move will allow corruption to be moved covertly. District heads elected by the Legislature will be primarily accountable to legislators, raising the risk of collusion and money politics.
Kahfi Adlan Hafiz, a project manager and researcher at election and democracy watchdog Perludem, said the proposal risks repeating the patronage and clientelism patterns of the New Order era.
“Local communities will no longer be able to identify themselves with leaders who understand local issues, such as traffic congestion, damaged roads or permits that harm the environment,” he told The Straits Times.
Kafi said elections conducted through legislative bodies present a greater risk of corruption because regional leaders answer only to local councils.
“This increases the risk of collusion and ultimately corruption between regional leaders and local legislative bodies with budgetary and oversight powers,” he added.
Ms Almas Savrina, acting coordinator of Corruption Watch Indonesia, said the institutional consequences would be severe.
“This will change the role and relationship between district executives and district legislative bodies,” she said. “With so much reliance on elections, there will be fewer and fewer checks and balances.”
She warned that the weakening of oversight would have a direct impact on governance. “If checks and balances are not put in place, there will be a significant increase in corruption in policy development and district budget management.”
Dr Arya said the wider political cost would be a further erosion of trust in parliament and political parties.
“If elections are conducted through local legislatures, the public will lose the opportunity to reward and punish local leaders,” he said, noting that lawmakers often lack autonomy and tend to follow instructions from the center party. He added that money politics has historically been high in such systems, and voters have no direct mechanism to hold leaders accountable.
Dr Titi Angleni, a lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Indonesia, described the proposal as a clear democratic backsliding.
“It removes the most basic mechanism of accountability, which is a direct relationship between voters and district leaders,” she said.
“Ultimately, abolishing direct local elections is not a reformist solution but a shortcut that could undermine the foundations of local democracy,” she said. “The challenges of political costs and corruption must be addressed through improvements in laws and institutions, not by sacrificing people’s right to vote.”
Democrats break with tradition
Democratic support for the proposal has drawn particular attention. The party has long been known as a defender of direct elections, supporting an emergency regulation enacted by Dr Yudhoyono in 2014 to block previous attempts to transfer electoral power to local councils.
Caffey described the current shift as “hugely disappointing”, saying it represented a radical break with the party’s democratic legacy.
Dr. Arya offers a more pragmatic explanation, pointing to alliance discipline rather than ideological change. As part of the ruling bloc, the party faces pressure to align with the president’s stance, he said.
Dr. Titi similarly believes that short-term political considerations aimed at maintaining influence within the Prabowo-led coalition appear to be more important than democratic principles.
PDI-P chairperson Mekawati Soekarnoputri opposed the proposal, saying: “Indirect election of regional chiefs violates people’s sovereignty and the spirit of the 1998 reform movement. The most fundamental thing is to deprive the people of their democratic right to directly decide their own leaders.”
The party believes indirect polls erode local democracy and undermine constitutional guarantees. Instead of scrapping direct polls, Ms Megawati urged other reforms to curb election costs, including electronic voting, a tighter crackdown on vote-buying, limits on campaign spending and the use of professional, honest election organizers.
The debate has taken on added urgency after a 2025 Constitutional Court ruling reshaped electoral rules, including requiring separate votes for presidential and regional elections starting in 2029.
Analysts say the rulings have refocused attention on electoral law and given impetus to elite efforts to redesign the electoral system ahead of new legislation, raising broader questions about citizens’ rights to choose their leaders.
“If this right is revoked, the people will no longer be the decision-makers but merely the recipients of elite decisions,” Ms Almas said.
