TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Towards the end of the House of Representatives' (DPR) five-year term, the legislators are creating one big controversy. People are protesting over the Local Elections (Pilkada) Bill, which seeks to return the local election system to the old one by which local chief executives would be selected by the regional councils (DPRD).

Even though the legislation is still in the planning stage, the conflict between the two groups in the DPR indicates the rivalry between the Red and White Coalition against the parties led by the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) has not ended. The Red and White Coalition wants elections via the DPRD while the 'other side' want to retain direct elections of local leaders. It is, moreover, clear that the Pilkada Bill was launched because of the need to dominate power, not to comply with the people's wishes.

Since direct elections began in 2005, people have seen many positive results. It was this system that voted in figures like Joko Widodo, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, Rismaharini and Ridwan Kamil. The public measures the success of direct elections by the steps taken by the elected officials whom they regard as clean, modest and hard-working. Direct elections enabled Jokowi's meteoric rise from mayor of Solo to Jakarta governor and now, to the nation's top job.

Undoubtedly, there are some negative sides to direct elections which must be noted. First, it creates corruption. Direct local elections opens the door to vote-buying. Second, after the elections are over, the consequent disputes flood the Constitutional Court, which we found out corrupted its chief justice, Akil Mochtar. Third, in many places, every time an election took place, violence and protests always followed it because of the uncertain results. Fourth, but not least of the argument, with direct elections, Indonesian political life is seen as unhealthy because parliament, as the principal instrument in a democratic life, is rendered unimportant.

In reality, those shortcomings can be overcome by amendments, not by revising the decade-old system. The direct election system was introduced specifically to minimize vote-buying. If this effort has not succeeded, it's most likely because the rules have not been effective. Besides tightening the regulations the direct elections system must go together with the law enforcers' courage to act against those who break the law.

In addition, the DPR's (or the DPRD) position as pillars of democracy must be strengthened by the legislators themselves. If the people cannot trust their own representatives, there must be a reason. From the media, it is now clear that some parliamentarians are corrupt, sleep during sessions or act as servants of political parties and not as the people's representatives.

Not surprisingly, people reject local elections through the DPRD, because it means eliminating the people's right to vote, which would make the DPRD super-powerful. This is certainly not an excessive concern. The fact is that such a system will cause regents or governors to bow to the DPRD instead of to the people it is supposed to represent.

The over-arching goal to pass this Pilkada Bill is not because of the shortcomings in the direct elections system, but because it is a political maneuver of the coalition which lost in the recent presidential election and which now attempts to seek another way to control the regions. This political manuever should be seen as a clear and present danger. (*)