Regional Elections by Parliament: The People’s Representation, Representing Themselves

The ruling coalition and government officials want to change how regional heads are elected. No more direct public voting. They want regional parliaments to decide. This idea, presented in a January 19, 2026 commentary by Indonesia Last Week on TikTok, has sparked significant public pushback. A study by Kompas, referenced in the video, revealed that more than three-quarters of respondents opposed the change.^[1][2][3]

The current system of regional elections in Indonesia has long been a cornerstone of democratic representation. Citizens choose their leaders directly. The proposal to transfer this responsibility to regional parliaments—bodies already tasked with representing the people—raises questions about the motivations behind such a shift. If the past year has demonstrated anything, it is the public’s growing scrutiny of whether their representatives are truly attuned to their needs. The Kompas study’s findings underscore this sentiment, with a clear majority rejecting the idea of removing direct public participation from the process.^[4]

The commentary also floats an alternative: recall elections. This mechanism, which allows voters to remove elected officials under specific conditions (such as signature thresholds, turnout requirements, or voting benchmarks), is not without precedent in other democracies. However, as the video acknowledges, recall elections are expensive. Yet, the argument goes, if public funds must be spent, why not allocate them toward a system that reinforces accountability rather than one that might dilute it?^[5][6]

The disconnect between public expectations and legislative actions has been a recurring theme in recent years. While lawmakers are elected to represent their constituents, the gap between policy and public sentiment often feels wide. Recall elections could, in theory, bridge this divide by providing a tangible check on performance. The idea of metaphorically ‘pulling representatives out of their seats’ if they fail to deliver on their promises is a compelling one—though, as the commentary hastily clarifies, this should not be interpreted as an endorsement of unlawful protests, such as staging demonstrations at lawmakers’ homes.^[7]

The debate over regional elections is not just about mechanics—it’s about trust. If the public perceives that their representatives are not acting in their best interests, then any system that further distances them from the decision-making process is likely to face resistance. The Kompas study’s results are a clear indication of this. Meanwhile, recall elections offer a potential solution, albeit one with its own challenges, including cost and logistical complexity.^[8]

The irony of proposing a system where regional parliaments—already elected by the people—would then select regional heads is hard to ignore. It’s a bit like asking the fox to guard the henhouse, but with more paperwork. The commentary’s suggestion of recall elections as a counterbalance is a reminder that democracy is not just about electing leaders but also about holding them accountable. Whether through direct votes, parliamentary decisions, or recall mechanisms, the ultimate goal should be a system that reflects the will of the people—even if that will is occasionally inconvenient for those in power.