Measuring the integrity of election organizers

Recently, the integrity of the election and public trust in the election organizers have continued to be shaken. The public still remembers when the KPU and Bawaslu argued over former corrupt legislative candidates. At that time, the KPU insisted on returning the registration files of the former corrupt legislative candidates, even though Bawaslu did not question it. The latest issue is that more than 2,000 cardboard ballot boxes were damaged in Badung, Bali. How should election organizers maintain their integrity as the guardians of democracy? Can the public still trust the integrity of the election with the recent news?

To discuss this, the 2019 Election Edition of the Populi Forum on Thursday (20/12) raised the theme "Assessing the Integrity of Election Organizers". Present in this discussion were speakers Dr. Ferry Kurnia Rizkiyansyah (Former KPU Commissioner) and Heroik Pratama (Researcher Perludem).

Ferry Kurnia said that currently election organizers such as the General Election Commission (KPU) are experiencing various problems. Former corruptors have entered the legislative candidate (caleg) election even though the KPU has made a KPU Regulation (PKPU) prohibiting former corruption convicts from running as people's representatives. Then, there is the problem of 31 million voter lists that have not been synchronized. This data comes from the Directorate General of Population and Civil Registration (Dukcapil) of the Ministry of Home Affairs which has not been included in the KPU data. The latest is about cardboard ballot boxes. According to Ferry, in previous elections, namely 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2018, cardboard ballot boxes were used. "(Cardboard) replaces the damaged ones, which can no longer be used. Although for ballot boxes, they still refer to aluminum," he said.

Regarding the KPU's performance so far, the former KPU Commissioner explained several important points. First, the regulation is still slow. According to him, there are two PKPU regulations that are still awaited by the public, namely the PKPU regarding vote counting and the PKPU regarding the recapitulation of vote counting and determination of results. The two PKPUs that should have been completed in August this year are very important because they are related to counting and recapitulation so they are needed by all parties.

Second, public communication. In Ferry's view, the KPU's public transparency side is not yet optimal. For example, until now there has been no information on how many legislative members are convicts in corruption cases. Third, the selection of KPU members at the provincial and city/district levels. There have been several cases of selection processes such as those in West Java (Jabar). The KPU RI reshuffled the names of candidates who passed the fit and proper test stage. This condition is closely related to the authority of the KPU which must select and decide on all KPU members at the provincial and city/district levels. "The mechanism is no longer hierarchical. Imagine there are 514 cities/districts that must be selected, decided on and inaugurated by the KPU RI. Previously it was delegated by the provincial KPU. This is so complicated (dizzying)," explained Ferry.

On the other hand, Heroik Pratama explained that the design of regulations in Indonesia has created a space of integrity for election organizers such as the KPU and Bawaslu. The 1945 Constitution states that the KPU has three basic categories, namely permanent, national, and independent. Previously in 1999, the election organizers were mixed. Political parties (parpol) entered as organizers. Currently, the election organizers are independent so that the public can trust the KPU, Bawaslu, and the Election Organizer Honorary Council (DKPP).

The design of Law Number 7 of 2017, according to Heroik, the KPU and Bawaslu have the authority to create their own recruitment teams. This means that the existing regulations place legal independence and integrity for election organizers. However, the challenges for the KPU and Bawaslu to maintain integrity are not easy. For example, there is one article in Law 7 of 2017 which states that KPU regulations are made based on consultation with Commission II, the results of which are binding. Finally, an appeal was submitted to the Constitutional Court and the Constitutional Court granted the request so that the RDP between the KPU, DPR, and government was no longer the basis that had to be met. "The RDP with Commission II is not unimportant, but the point of emphasis is limited to consultation. Furthermore, the emphasis is still on the decisions of the KPU and Bawaslu," he said.