The Open Proportional Election System in Indonesia: Legal Problems, Oligarchic Practices, and State Financial Losses

Abstract

This study addresses the negative impacts of Indonesia’s open proportional election system, particularly its tendency to foster oligarchy, corruption, and abuse of office that result in significant losses to the state economy and public welfare. The system compels elected officials to recoup substantial campaign costs funded by oligarchs, often through corrupt practices, as evidenced by numerous convictions of regional heads and ministers. This research employs a normative juridical method with a descriptive-analytical specification. Data were collected from secondary and tertiary legal materials, including statutory regulations, court decisions, audit reports from the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), and previous scholarly studies on electoral corruption. A qualitative legal analysis was used to identify regulatory gaps in the current electoral system. The findings reveal three structural problems: 1) The open proportional system creates high-cost politics, forcing candidates to rely on financiers and triggering a cycle of capital repayment through corruption; 2) Weak legal instruments fail to regulate campaign financing, money politics, and conflicts of interest, enabling state financial leakages; 3) The system prioritizes elite competition over public interest, undermining welfare-oriented governance. The study estimates that electoral corruption linked to this system has contributed to trillions of rupiah in state losses since 2019. The novelty of this research lies in its legal reconstruction proposal: the need for urgent electoral regulation that embeds principles of economic justice and state financial protection. The study concludes that reforming the open proportional system is imperative. It recommends policy changes focused on campaign finance transparency, strict sanctions for money politics, and legal safeguards to ensure elections support national economic growth and public welfare, not oligarchic interests.