A plan to end direct local elections worries democracy watchers

Some parties in President Prabowo Subianto's coalition want to end the direct election of governors, mayors, and district heads, letting local councils choose them instead. Writing for Indonesia at Melbourne, Yoes C. Kenawas and Amalinda Savirani explain the plan and why they think it would backfire. Supporters say direct local elections, known as pilkada langsung, let powerful families buy their way into office, so handing the choice to regional councils would curb these political dynasties.

The authors show the argument does not hold up. It is true that dynastic candidates have grown, from 202 in the 2015 to 2018 elections to 659 in 2024, rising to about 21 percent of all candidates. But their success actually fell over the same time, from about 68 percent winning to about 40 percent. In other words, voters were already pushing back against family dynasties on their own.

Handing the decision to local councils, the authors warn, would make things worse, not better. Instead of millions of voters, a small group of council members would pick leaders, which is far easier for a wealthy family or party boss to control. The real fix, they argue, is stronger, more rule-bound political parties. The proposal matters because directly electing local leaders has been a core part of Indonesia's democracy since the reforms that followed Suharto's fall in 1998.

Why it matters

If this passes, you could lose the power to directly choose your governor or mayor, handing it to local politicians instead. That change would reshape local democracy and, the authors argue, hand more power to the very dynasties it claims to fight. Watch whether the proposal gains ground in parliament, and how strongly the public pushes back.