The legislative election is half a year away, and yet the existing legislation regulating the electoral process, which is still party- rather than people-oriented, has lately become the sticking point threatening the smooth and timely organization of the political event which occurs every five years.
There has been increasing pressure – both inside and outside the House of Representatives – to have this law amended, especially the article regarding the selection of candidates for the 2009 legislative election.
The 2008 Law on Legislative Elections, constitutionally valid for next year's election, stipulates that a party candidate will earn a seat if he/she manages to gain a minimum 30 percent of the vote division number (BPP) – calculated by dividing the number of votes with the number of legislative seats at stake in an electoral district.
If no candidate can reach the threshold, the law says seats obtained by the party will be given to those ranking at the top of the party's list of candidates.
Despite the existing stipulations, attempts have been made by some political parties, through their five factions at the House, to amend the legislative election law: Among other means, proposing a majority vote system for the selection of candidates to be elected; or that the General Elections Commission (KPU) conduct the candidate selection based on political parties' internal mechanisms.
The majority vote base means that remaining seats would go to candidates who earn the most votes, regardless of their ranking in party lists.
The five factions' move, however, has been challenged by women's activists who have demanded the party rank system be retained as it provides more opportunities for female candidates to be elected.
The 2008 law does not strictly regulate the serial numbering mechanism for legislative candidates submitted by each political party in the election. It only stipulates at least one in every three candidates submitted be female.
Activists have also disagreed with the proposal that the KPU let the political parties' internal mechanisms elect candidates as this would be open to manipulation and backroom deals.
Other critics, however, back the majority vote mechanism because electing candidates using a party list system, they say, would facilitate a continued domination of legislative bodies by party loyalists – irrespective of their public popularity.
The five House factions, their supporters and the women's activists all have solid points supporting their respective arguments. However, there is not a one-size-fits-all mechanism for every aspect of our lives, including politics, and there certainly will not be such a mechanism for the selection of legislative candidates that will satisfy the interests of everyone at stake.
The 2008 law is indeed far from perfect, but it is the available valid regulation that we have for the 2009 legislative elections. And if we later fail to develop the perfect law for the legislative elections (through the amendments proposed), in time at least the nation will still have an opportunity to get the best parliamentarians elected in next year's election (those who are hoped to produce the best legislation in the future, including regulations for the subsequent 2014 legislative election).
To begin with, all political parties contesting next year's election should stop forwarding their own interests, and put those of the people (voters) – the true holders of all political decision-making processes in Indonesia – above the interests of any other individuals or groups.
Whatever mechanism is eventually agreed upon next year, it must be obtained through an agreement of the majority, and aim to provide maximum opportunities for people to access the country's political affairs (including in the decision-making process at the future House of Representatives, whose members they elect).
Democracy, by definition, is a government or system in which the supreme power is vested in the people, and is exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodical free elections. Therefore in selecting the best election legislation mechanism, we must also let the people decide.