Figure Ilustration AI
FORMOSA NEWS - Indramayu - Indonesia’s Election Oversight Must Shift to Prevention to Ensure Fairer Democracy, Study Finds. A 2026 study by Didi Nursidi and Murtiningsih Kartini from the Graduate School of Wiralodra University highlights a critical gap in Indonesia’s election system: oversight still relies heavily on punishing violations after they occur. Published in the Formosa Journal of Applied Sciences, the research argues that shifting toward preventive election supervision is essential to achieving substantive electoral justice and protecting citizens’ political rights. The findings matter as Indonesia continues to face recurring election challenges, including administrative violations, electoral crimes, and disputes over results. These issues not only threaten electoral integrity but also weaken public trust in democratic institutions. By proposing a preventive model, the study offers a practical pathway to improve the quality and fairness of elections in one of the world’s largest democracies.
Why Election Oversight Needs Reform
Elections are the backbone of democratic governance, serving as the primary mechanism for translating public will into political authority. In Indonesia, however, election supervision has long been dominated by a legalistic and enforcement-oriented approach. In practice, the Election Supervisory Body (Badan Pengawas Pemilihan Umum, or Bawaslu) is often viewed mainly as an institution that handles violations and imposes sanctions. This reactive model focuses on resolving disputes after problems arise, rather than preventing them in the first place. As a result, the effectiveness of election oversight is frequently measured by the number of cases processed. This metric, the study argues, overlooks a more important question: how many violations could have been avoided.
Simple Approach: Reviewing Laws and Concepts
The research uses a normative legal approach. Instead of field surveys or experiments, the authors examined election laws, academic literature, and legal concepts related to electoral justice.
They compared two main models of election oversight:
Why Election Oversight Needs Reform
Elections are the backbone of democratic governance, serving as the primary mechanism for translating public will into political authority. In Indonesia, however, election supervision has long been dominated by a legalistic and enforcement-oriented approach. In practice, the Election Supervisory Body (Badan Pengawas Pemilihan Umum, or Bawaslu) is often viewed mainly as an institution that handles violations and imposes sanctions. This reactive model focuses on resolving disputes after problems arise, rather than preventing them in the first place. As a result, the effectiveness of election oversight is frequently measured by the number of cases processed. This metric, the study argues, overlooks a more important question: how many violations could have been avoided.
Simple Approach: Reviewing Laws and Concepts
The research uses a normative legal approach. Instead of field surveys or experiments, the authors examined election laws, academic literature, and legal concepts related to electoral justice.
They compared two main models of election oversight:
- Repressive approach: focuses on enforcement after violations occur.
- Preventive approach: emphasizes early detection and avoidance of violations.
By analyzing legal frameworks and scholarly discussions, the researchers identified structural weaknesses in Indonesia’s current system and proposed a conceptual shift toward prevention.
Key Findings: Prevention Outperforms Enforcement
The study presents a clear conclusion: relying solely on enforcement after violations is not enough to ensure fair elections. Instead, preventive oversight provides stronger protection for voters and electoral participants.
Key findings include:
Key Findings: Prevention Outperforms Enforcement
The study presents a clear conclusion: relying solely on enforcement after violations is not enough to ensure fair elections. Instead, preventive oversight provides stronger protection for voters and electoral participants.
Key findings include:
- Post-violation enforcement cannot fully restore political harm experienced by voters.
- Electoral justice remains procedural when based only on legal compliance.
- Preventive strategies reduce the likelihood of violations before they occur.
- Public participation strengthens oversight effectiveness.
The research emphasizes that fewer violations indicate a healthier electoral system. In this framework, success is defined not by how many cases are resolved, but by how effectively problems are avoided.
Real-World Impact for Democracy and Policy
The implications of this research extend beyond academic theory. A preventive approach to election oversight could reshape how democratic systems operate in Indonesia. First, it calls for a change in performance indicators. Institutions like Bawaslu should be evaluated based on their ability to prevent violations, not just handle them. Second, it highlights the need for regulatory reform. Laws that focus too heavily on sanctions may limit innovation in prevention strategies. A more balanced framework could enable flexible and adaptive oversight mechanisms. Third, the study underscores the importance of institutional capacity. Strengthening human resources, digital tools, and coordination systems will be essential to implement preventive supervision effectively. In the long term, these changes could significantly increase public trust in elections. When citizens see fewer violations and fairer processes, confidence in democratic outcomes is likely to grow.
Author Profiles
Didi Nursidi, S.H., M.H. is a legal scholar at the Graduate School of Wiralodra University, specializing in constitutional law and electoral law. His research focuses on electoral justice, democratic institutions, and legal reform in Indonesia.
Murtiningsih Kartini, S.H., M.H. is an academic researcher in public law and democratic governance at Wiralodra University. Her expertise includes election supervision, political rights, and institutional accountability.
Source
Nursidi, D., & Kartini, M. (2026). Reconstructing the Role of the Election Supervisory Body in Upholding Substantive Electoral Justice in Indonesia. Formosa Journal of Applied Sciences (FJAS), Vol. 5 No. 2, 677–690.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55927/fjas.v5i2.22
URL:https://journalfjas.my.id/index.php/fjas
Real-World Impact for Democracy and Policy
The implications of this research extend beyond academic theory. A preventive approach to election oversight could reshape how democratic systems operate in Indonesia. First, it calls for a change in performance indicators. Institutions like Bawaslu should be evaluated based on their ability to prevent violations, not just handle them. Second, it highlights the need for regulatory reform. Laws that focus too heavily on sanctions may limit innovation in prevention strategies. A more balanced framework could enable flexible and adaptive oversight mechanisms. Third, the study underscores the importance of institutional capacity. Strengthening human resources, digital tools, and coordination systems will be essential to implement preventive supervision effectively. In the long term, these changes could significantly increase public trust in elections. When citizens see fewer violations and fairer processes, confidence in democratic outcomes is likely to grow.
Author Profiles
Didi Nursidi, S.H., M.H. is a legal scholar at the Graduate School of Wiralodra University, specializing in constitutional law and electoral law. His research focuses on electoral justice, democratic institutions, and legal reform in Indonesia.
Murtiningsih Kartini, S.H., M.H. is an academic researcher in public law and democratic governance at Wiralodra University. Her expertise includes election supervision, political rights, and institutional accountability.
Source
Nursidi, D., & Kartini, M. (2026). Reconstructing the Role of the Election Supervisory Body in Upholding Substantive Electoral Justice in Indonesia. Formosa Journal of Applied Sciences (FJAS), Vol. 5 No. 2, 677–690.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55927/fjas.v5i2.22
URL:https://journalfjas.my.id/index.php/fjas
0 Komentar