Tools & Resources
Filter by
Type
Publication date
Language
Type
Publication date
Language
Publication
Report/Paper
Evaluation Report of Election Supervisors (2005)
Barely five years after the 1999 General Elections which marked the first democratic elections in Indonesia since 1955, another General Elections was held in 2004 which was expected to take a step farther the 1999 electoral exercises. Armed with new laws, regulations, and decrees to implement a new elections system; with the technical and financial support of the international community; with more enlightened and better equipped electoral management and supervisory bodies; and with the renewed hope and interest of civil society groups - the stakes were high and expectations were extraordinary that the 2004 elections would be a showcase of the new Indonesian democratic political process. In real terms and for the ordinary Indonesian citizens, why was the 2004 elections significant? Did they think that it would bring an improvement in their lives? The 2003 IFES survey in Indonesia revealed that the level of optimism regarding the economic and security conditions in the country decreased significantly since 2002. Just like previous IFES surveys in Indonesia, the economic situation remained the problem of greatest concern to majority of the citizens. Majority of Indonesians were also dissatisfied with the implementation of most aspects of the reform agenda. As a result of this, the people’s evaluation of the performance of government actions and of most national leaders and institutions plummeted. For instance, in 2003 – the height of elections preparations and the beginning of some of the stages of election implementation – 71% of the people thought that the government’s actions brought little or no improvement to the country. This was a rise in people’s dissatisfaction compared to 2002 which, although still high, was a bit lower at 66%. A majority of those aware of the presidency, DPR, and MPR were dissatisfied with performance of these institutions.
December 31, 2004
Publication
Book
Gender Equality & Election Management Bodies: A Best Practices Guide
The full participation of women and men in a country's political and decision-making processes as voters, candidates, elected officials and electoral management body (EMB) staff is crucial. Yet, despite a set of robust international instruments and many positive developments in recent years, women represent only 21.7 percent of world's parliamentarians and in many countries they continue to be marginalized and underrepresented in political and electoral processes. Clearly, major steps still need to be taken before true gender equality is achieved in this arena.
September 23, 2014
Publication
Report/Paper
Understanding the Success of Multiethnic Parties in Indonesia
IFES’ 2012 Hybl Fellow Geoffrey Macdonald focuses on the influence of election rules in preventing the rise of ethnic parties in Indonesia in this Democracy Fellowship Paper.
February 14, 2013
Publication
Report/Paper
Opportunity for Electoral Reform: Election Administration
This report provides analysis of the current structures and institutions of election administration in Indonesia and offers recommendations for improving their performance. The report assesses operations of these administrative bodies in light of experience of June 1999 general elections and June 2000 changes to Indonesia’s election law. Comparative information regarding international practices and experiences in election administration is utilized to illustrate important points. However, the report recognizes the need for Indonesian practices to fit Indonesian cultural and political circumstances. Because the report’s focus is on core issues of organizational operations in election administration, many other important and related issues for electoral reform are not addressed. IFES is engaged in providing ongoing technical assistance to Indonesian officials and election experts in other areas, such as political finance regulation and complaint adjudication. Also, this report does not consider in detail several major issues that are still being debated in Indonesia, such as the method of electing the President, or whether to adopt a “single member constituency” rather than a proportional representation electoral system.
November 30, 2001
Publication
Report/Paper
Opportunity for Electoral Reform in Indonesia: CEPPS Final Report
This report provides analysis of the current structures and institutions of election administration in Indonesia and offers recommendations for improving their performance. The report assesses operations of these administrative bodies in light of experience of June 1999 general elections and June 2000 changes to Indonesia’s election law. Comparative information regarding international practices and experiences in election administration is utilized to illustrate important points. However, the report recognizes the need for Indonesian practices to fit Indonesian cultural and political circumstances. Because the report’s focus is on core issues of organizational operations in election administration, many other important and related issues for electoral reform are not addressed. IFES is engaged in providing ongoing technical assistance to Indonesian officials and election experts in other areas, such as political finance regulation and complaint adjudication. Also, this report does not consider in detail several major issues that are still being debated in Indonesia, such as the method of electing the President, or whether to adopt a “single member constituency” rather than a proportional representation electoral system. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS I SCOPE OF REPORT II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III INTRODUCTION A Election Circumstances B Election Administration 1. Legislative Framework 2. Administrative Arrangements 3. Operational Performance 4. Enforcement of Electoral Law 5. Reform of Election Administration IV ELECTION ADMINISTRATION IN A DEMOCRACY A Principles B Elements V OVERVIEW OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATION IN INDONESIA A Structure B Composition & Appointment C Duties & Powers D Secretariats 1. National Level 2. Provincial and Lower Levels VI STRUCTURE & OPERATIONS OF NATIONAL ELECTION COMMISSION (KPU) A Management Structures for the 1999 Elections 1. KPU Committees 2. KPU Secretariat B Lessons from the 1999 General Elections 1. Independence & Impartiality 2. Structure 3. Operations C Reorganization & Reform: 1. Recommendations 2. Powers, Responsibilities and Accountability a. Powers b. Role of PPI c. Responsibilities d. Accountability e. Remuneration 3. KPU Secretariat a. Secretary General b. Accountability of the Secretary General c. Relationship Between KPU and Secretary General d. Secretariat Staff Appointments and Conditions of Service 4. Organizational Structure of the KPU Secretariat 5. Priorities a. Timetable VII STRUCTURE & OPERATIONS OF IMPLEMENTING ELECTION COMMITTEES A Lessons from the 1999 General Elections B Reorganization & Reform: Recommendations 1. Structure, Duties & Powers 2. Composition & Appointment a. Party Representation b. Organizational Requirements and Characteristics c. Secretariat 3. Coordination, Communication & Logistics a. Election Materials VIII GENERAL ISSUES OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATION A Election Law 1. Timing of Election Law Review 2. Content of Election Law B Financial Autonomy & Accountability 1. Budgetary Planning 2. Source of KPU Funding 3. Responsibilities for Funding Elections 4. Financial Controls C Transparency and Integrity 1. Independence & Impartiality 2. Conduct of KPU & Election Committee Members & Staff 3. Open Access to KPU & Election Committee Activities & Information 4. Reporting and Accountability 5. External Auditing 6. International Linkages D Internal Management Improvement E Recruitment & Training 1. Recruitment of Secretariat Staff 2. Training and Professional Development 3. Training for External Organizations F Role of Political Parties 1. KPU, PPD-I & PPD-II Levels 2. PPS, PPK & KPPS Levels G Voter Registration H Vote Counting & Consolidation I Complaint Adjudication J Impact of Potential Change K Regional Autonomy IX CONCLUSION X SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS XI APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Summary of Main Features of National Election Management Bodies Appendix 2 – International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Code of Conduct for Ethical and Professional Administration of Elections Appendix 3 – Text of Amending Law No 4 of 2000 to Law No 3 Of 1999 on General Elections Appendix 4 – Current Members of the National Election Commission (KPU) Appendix 5 – National Election Commission (KPU) Secretariat Organizational Chart, 1999 Election Appendix 6 – Proposed New Organizational Chart for Secretariat of National Election Commission (KPU) Appendix 7 – Service Conditions of Election Management Body Secretariats
November 30, 2001
Publication
Report/Paper
Accessible Elections for Persons with Disabilities in Five Southeast Asian Countries
All too often, persons with disabilities are not included in the political lives of their country on an equal basis with others. Accessible Elections for Persons with Disabilities in Five Southeast Asian Countries is the first systematic attempt to gather data on election access from Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, the Philippines and Vietnam. The report reviews – for persons with disabilities – existing legal frameworks, challenges and barriers in exercising political rights and participation; best practices and innovations; and examples of how disabled persons organizations have been involved in electoral issues.
October 25, 2013
Publication
Survey
Key Findings: IFES Indonesia Electoral Survey 2010
In August 2010, IFES contracted Polling Center of Jakarta to conduct a nationwide public opinion survey with a sample size of 2,500. Interviews were conducted in all 33 provinces and the survey is nationally representative of all voting-age individuals across Indonesia. The survey focused on the electoral process and electoral institutions in the country but also addresses general socio-economic issue and attitudes toward democracy and political participation. A summary of key finding from the survey is provided below. Some comparative data from an IFES 2008 survey is also cited. The sample size for that survey was also 2,500 and was nationally representative of all voting-age individuals across Indonesia. The margin of error for a survey of this size is plus/minus 2%.
September 30, 2010
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave I through II
Methodology • Both the Wave I and Wave II surveys were conducted using face-to-face interviews with 1250 respondents, selected by multi-stage random sampling of eligible voters throughout each of the 32 provinces of Indonesia. • The composition of the survey sample in each survey reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for national data for both surveys is +/- 2.8% at a 95% confidence level. • For Wave I, the face-to-face interviews were conducted between 13 and 18 December 2003. For Wave II, the interviews were conducted between 12 and 15 January 2004. • In this report, data from the Wave I survey is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the Wave II survey.
January 31, 2004
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave I through IV
Methodology • Both the Wave I and Wave II surveys were conducted using face-to-face interviews with 1,250 respondents (per wave) selected by multi-stage random sampling of eligible voters throughout each of the 32 provinces of Indonesia. The Wave III survey was conducted in half the sampled locations throughout the country with 1,000 respondents, and the Wave IV survey was conducted in the rest of the sampled locations with 1,000 respondents. • The composition of the Wave I and II data reflects the rural/urban, men/women and interprovincial proportions of the Indonesian population. The combined data from Waves III and IV also reflect these proportions. • The margin of error for the national data in Waves I and II is +/- 2.8% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Wave III and IV data is 2.2% at a 95% confidence level. • For Wave I, the face-to-face interviews were conducted between 13 and 18 December 2003. For Wave II, the interviews were conducted between 12 and 15 January 2004. For Wave III, the interviews were conducted between January 26 and February 1. For Wave IV, the interviews were conducted between February 1 and 6. • In this report, data from the Wave I and Wave II surveys is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the combined Wave III and Wave IV surveys. Regional breakdowns reflect data from the combined Wave III and Wave IV surveys.
February 29, 2004
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave V through VIII (March 26, 2004)
Methodology • Both the Wave I and Wave II surveys were conducted using face-to-face interviews with 1,250 respondents (per wave) selected by multi-stage random sampling of eligible voters throughout each of the 32 provinces of Indonesia. The Wave III survey was conducted in half the sampled locations throughout the country with 1,000 respondents, and the Wave IV survey was conducted in the rest of the sampled locations with 1,000 respondents. Each of the Waves V to VIII surveys were conducted in a quarter of the sampled locations throughout the country with 1,000 respondents in each Wave, for a national total of 4,000 respondents. • The composition of the data in Wave I, Wave II, Waves III and IV combined, and Waves V through VIII combined reflects the rural/urban, male/female and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data in Waves I and II is +/- 2.8% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves III and IV data is 2.2% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves V through VIII data is 1.55% at a 95% confidence level. • For Wave I, the face-to-face interviews were conducted between 13 and 18 December 2003. For Wave II, the interviews were conducted between 12 and 15 January 2004. For Wave III, the interviews were conducted between January 26 and February 1. For Wave IV, the interviews were conducted between February 1 and 6. For Wave V, the dates of interviews were February 15-19; for Wave VI, February 21-25; for Wave VII, February 27-March 2; for Wave VIII, March 6-10 (the day before the commencement of the election campaign). • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, and Waves III-IV surveys is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the combined Wave V through Wave VIII surveys. Regional breakdowns reflect data from the combined Wave V through Wave VIII surveys.
March 25, 2004