Yogyakarta. Rector of Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII) Fathul Wahid has rejected proposals to revert the selection of governors, mayors, and regents to indirect elections conducted by local legislatures, urging the government to retain the current system of direct regional polls.

Fathul argued that appointing regional heads through votes in regional legislative councils, known as DPRD, would weaken popular sovereignty.

“I prefer direct elections. Why? Because that is where the people’s sovereignty is respected. Citizens can choose their own leaders, and those leaders are accountable to the people,” Fathul said in an interview on Tuesday.

“However, if the system is taken over by elections through the DPRD, we are concerned that people’s sovereignty will be reduced and leaders will become accountable only to the DPRD, not to the public,” he added.

Fathul said arguments citing cost savings as justification for scrapping direct regional elections were misplaced and risked sacrificing democratic principles.

“The state must respect the voice and sovereignty of the people, and one way to do that is by maintaining direct elections for regional leaders,” he said.

He described any move to abolish direct regional elections — after nearly two decades of implementation — as a democratic setback.

“It is not difficult to say that this would represent a regression, and possibly even a hijacking of democracy, because the public’s rights would suddenly be removed,” Fathul said.

The proposal to return regional head selection to DPRD voting resurfaced following remarks from President Prabowo Subianto during the early months of his administration and was later amplified by figures from Gerindra Party, which he leads.

Several senior figures from other political parties have also expressed support for the idea, fueling public debate over the future of Indonesia’s system of direct local elections.

Direct regional elections were formally implemented nationwide in 2005, replacing an earlier system in which local legislative councils (DPRD) selected regional heads.

Although the Constitution does not mandate a specific election method in explicit detail, it emphasizes that regional leaders must be chosen democratically, a clause that has been widely interpreted — by lawmakers, courts, and civil society — as supporting direct elections by voters.

The Constitutional Court has repeatedly affirmed that both direct and indirect elections can be considered “democratic” in principle. However, in practice, the Court has upheld legislation favoring direct elections, citing their stronger alignment with popular sovereignty, accountability, and political participation.

A brief attempt to abolish direct regional elections occurred in 2014, when parliament passed a law returning the process to DPRD voting. The move triggered widespread public protests and was swiftly overturned through a government regulation in lieu of law (Perppu), restoring direct elections.

Supporters of reverting to DPRD-based selection argue that direct elections are costly and strain public finances and that political competition has fueled money politics and polarization.

However, opponents counter that indirect elections risk elite capture and transactional politics, while stressing that direct elections strengthen accountability, as leaders answer directly to voters rather than party-controlled legislatures.

Add as a preferred source on Google +