Lugas Mahfud Ungkap 'Borok' Jika Kepala Daerah Dipilih DPRD: Jorok & Penuh Kecurangan!

Summary

The speaker discusses the flaws of Indonesia's direct regional elections (Pilkada), highlighting the excessive costs, corruption, and unethical practices that have emerged since their implementation in 2006. Arguing that the system encourages political manipulation and undermines public trust, the speaker proposes an evaluation of whether the election process should return to being handled by regional councils (DPRD). The speaker also reflects on past efforts to change the system, noting how political forces have resisted reforms due to their own interests, ultimately leading to the persistence of the current, flawed system.

Takeaways

• 😀 The speaker emphasizes the need to evaluate direct local elections (Pilkada) in Indonesia due to high costs and unethical practices in the process.
• 😀 Direct elections have resulted in corruption, with the majority of local elections financed by 'cukong' (moneyed interests), leading to political favors post-election.
• 😀 The speaker refers to a 2020 KPK report stating that 84% of local elections were funded by corrupt practices, causing political divisions that persist even after elections.
• 😀 The high financial cost of local elections is seen as a major issue, with candidates often spending hundreds of millions to billions of IDR to run for positions like governor or mayor.
• 😀 The speaker suggests that an evaluation of whether local elections should return to being handled by regional legislatures (DPRD) is necessary, to address the negative consequences of direct elections.
• 😀 The history of direct elections in Indonesia is seen as an experiment that started in 2004 and failed to resolve issues like money politics, voter bribery, and undemocratic practices.
• 😀 Prior to the 2004 law, local leaders were chosen by the DPRD, but this system also had its own problems, including coercion and bribery within the regional councils.
• 😀 In 2012, there was a strong agreement among all political parties to revert to DPRD-led elections due to the failure of direct elections and the widespread misuse of funds.
• 😀 The 2014 change of heart in political parties, particularly after the presidential election, led to a shift back to supporting direct elections, despite previous agreements to revert to the DPRD system.
• 😀 The speaker recounts the controversy in 2014 when President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) faced public backlash for supporting direct elections, despite a law being passed that would return the election process to the DPRD.

Q & A

What is the main concern expressed in the script about direct elections?

The main concern is that direct elections, especially for local leaders like governors and mayors, are expensive and prone to corruption, with unethical practices such as political money, bribery, and vote-buying influencing the results.

What did the speaker suggest as a possible alternative to direct elections?

The speaker suggested that local elections might be reevaluated, potentially returning to a system where local leaders are elected through the Regional Representative Council (DPRD), as was the case before the introduction of direct elections in 2006.

How does the speaker justify the need for a reevaluation of the current election system?

The speaker argues that the current system is costly, promotes corruption, and creates divisions within society. The high cost of campaigns and the involvement of 'cukong' (moneyed interests) in funding elections lead to corruption, with the winners owing favors to these backers.

What evidence did the speaker provide to support the argument about corruption in local elections?

The speaker cited data from the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), which found that 84% of local elections were funded by 'cukong' (moneyed elites), leading to candidates feeling obligated to give out favors once in office, contributing to corruption.

What historical context did the speaker mention regarding the evolution of local elections in Indonesia?

The speaker explained that local elections were originally part of a broader experiment in decentralization and democracy after the fall of the New Order regime. Prior to direct elections, local leaders were chosen by the DPRD, but this system was marred by corruption and bribery, which led to the shift to direct elections in 2006.

What was the outcome of the 2012-2014 discussion about returning to DPRD elections?

In 2012-2014, there was a near-consensus among all political parties to return to the DPRD system. However, political dynamics, especially the fear of losing control of local governments to opposing coalitions, led to the rejection of the proposal, despite it being supported by the majority of parties.

How did political parties react to the proposal to return to the DPRD election system in 2014?

Although the majority of political parties, including PDIP, initially supported the return to DPRD-based elections, there was significant political pushback, especially from parties fearing a loss of power. Ultimately, the proposal was blocked due to opposition from those who feared it would centralize control under one coalition.

What role did the media play in shaping the debate over the election system?

The media played a significant role in the debate, particularly by amplifying public criticism. The speaker mentioned how President SBY faced backlash on social media for agreeing to the proposed change to the election system, leading to his decision to ultimately side with the direct election process.

What does the speaker believe was the effect of direct elections on public behavior and ethics?

The speaker believes that direct elections have led to the normalization of unethical practices, such as vote-buying and the reliance on 'serangan fajar' (the distribution of money or goods during elections), which undermines the integrity of democracy and miseducates the public.

How did the legal framework surrounding the election system evolve in Indonesia?

The legal framework shifted from local leaders being selected by the DPRD to direct elections after the 2004 law change. This shift led to new challenges, including increased political money and corruption, which continued to be a problem even after the 2014 attempts to amend the system back to DPRD elections.