Evaluation of 2019 Simultaneous Elections
Simultaneous elections have left many in grief. As many as 424 members of polling station working committees (KPPS) and 11 police officers died in the task of carrying out the electoral process.
The highest number was in West Java, followed by Central Java and East Java, as well as other regions. Moreover, 3,668 other KPPS members were reported to be sick. The number of KPPS officers throughout Indonesia is indeed quite large, reaching about 5.6 million people in 810,329 polling stations (TPS).
The large number of KPPS officers who died and were sick, not to mention the election supervisors and security forces, certainly could not be underestimated. They are heroes of democracy, ordinary people who take part in making the elections successful. They gave themselves to the implementation of elections that were technically complicated.
The 2019 simultaneous elections were indeed phenomenal, despite their shortcomings, making new history as the largest ever held in one day. The technical complexity, the presidential election that had only two candidates and the long duration of the campaigns created widespread political polarization and psychological exhaustion.
They were technically complex because the average vote count lasted until the early hours of the morning. It was necessary for officers to have excellent physical stamina and good emotional maturity. They were "voluntary" workers, the vanguard of the success of a democratic party. Without them, without the existence of community members who were called KPPS officers, electoral democracy could not be implemented. Even though they could not be directly contrasted with the partisans who were busy ensuring victory, the roles and responsibilities of the officers in the technical implementation of the elections were very noble.
The notes above are part of an important evaluation of the 2019 simultaneous elections. It seems that all agree that in the future, such phenomena must be anticipated more seriously. The methods can be varied, whether the selection is improved, or something else. However, this incident could be an entrance to changes in the electoral system and its implementation. It can also simply reinterpret the simultaneous concept in national elections. It could be that there would emerge an idea of a zone system or something else, emulating India, for example.
Replacing the system?
Replacing the system for the implementation of elections does require a political process that is not as simple as we imagine. The various factors of the previous decisions of the Constitutional Court (MK) also need to be considered. For example, the idea of returning the electoral system to closed proportionality is not as simple as it may seem. However, system changes in democratic countries are not taboo; they are even ordinary. The electoral engineering perspective opens opportunities for efforts to find a suitable electoral system.
In The Politics of the Electoral Reform, Changing the Rules of Democracy (2010), Alan Renwick illustrates changes in the electoral systems in a number of democratic countries. In France, 1985, the voting system changed from two-round qualified plurality to a list of proportional representation. However, a year later it returned to the two-round qualified plurality. In 1993, Italy, which previously had a list of electoral proportional representation system, replaced it with mixed member majoritarian with partial compensation and in 2005 changed to bonus-adjusted proportional representation. In New Zealand, in 1993, the election system changed from single member plurality to mixed-member proportional. Japan, in 1994, changed from a single non-transferable vote to mixed-member majoritarian.
Looking for a suitable electoral system, therefore, does not have a fixed price even though the process still involves the dynamics of "political forces" in the House of Representatives (DPR) and government, without ignoring the Constitutional Court. Seeing its tendency, in the simultaneous elections this time, some of the goals are achieved when they are expected to prevent "divided government". If the results of the quick count of the post-ballot survey instituted on April 17, 2019, are used as assumptions, the government of Joko Widodo and Ma\'ruf Amin will be supported by a majority of seats in the DPR. This illustrates that a coattail effect, although limited, occurs. Moreover, it also gives hope for a more stable administration in the future.
However, also as evaluation material, a paradox with the situation of society is felt. When divided government can be prevented, after an election the residue of division is highly felt (quasidivided society). The post-election elites are always bothered by efforts toward reconciliation and "normalization" of the sociopolitical society that are not easy. Political polarization, which is sharp in the elite realm, can usually subside in a fast way at the lay level. Moreover, when the effect of "democracy of feeling", borrowing the term of William Davies from his book, Nervous States, How Feeling Took Over The World (2018), continues to grow on social media.
Re-engineering of the electoral system
The efforts of political elites and the community to realize, according to the term of William Davies, democracy of reason are not easy and need extra activities. Davies underlined that a surge in democracy is in harmony with a plunge in reasoning, when what is dominant is worry, suspicion and distrust, which continue to be preserved virally through social media, that is unreasonable and merely a hoax.
Democracy of feeling is in harmony with the speed with which society gives a response, which is based solely on sentiment of feeling, not clarity of mind and intelligence to act wisely.
The feeling of the community continues to be stirred up by hoax propaganda, including by using identity issues. Devies\' comments coincide with Francis Fukuyama\'s explanation in Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment (2018). His political development has tended to move toward the politicization of identity displacing more fundamental issues. The stretching of the politicization of identity that was felt in our simultaneous elections should also be anticipated in the future through the system improvement.
Looking at the simultaneous elections this time, it seems that it is time to re-engineer the electoral system fundamentally toward compatibility, not because it is more dominated by contests among political forces. The main consideration is to refresh democracy again so that its participatory practices become more qualified in an atmosphere of mutual trust in maintaining the spirit of democracy.
M Alfan Alfian, Postgraduate Lecturer in Political Science, National University, Jakarta