Democratization of Legislative Prospective Candidate Selection: Urgency and Its Parameters

Introduction to The Problem: One of the most important functions of political parties in a representative democracy is to recruit or select candidates for public officials. One of which is the selection of legislative candidates. Through this function, political parties will determine whether a person has the quality and capacity to be a member of representative and carry out his role well. Article 241 of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections mandates that political parties in selecting candidates must be democratically and openly. But, the criteria of democratic selection is not rigidly regulated because they are fully submitted to be regulated in the internal regulations of political parties. Purpose/Objective Study: This article aims to analyze the urgency of the process of selecting legislative prospective candidate democratically and to find several parameters for the democratic selection of legislative prospective candidate. Design/Methodology/Approach: This is a normative legal research. The research sources consist of primary law and secondary law. It will also use non-legal material sources. Data collection is carried out through literature study. Findings: The results of the research are: First, the urgency of the selection of candidates to be democratically because this mechanism promises some benefits for the societies, political parties, and the quality of democracy in general, i.e: The democratic process of selecting candidates is directly proportional to the satisfaction of the wider community towards the democratic system itself; and tending to produce competent and desired candidates by the public, as well as adopting more responsive policies. Second, the parameters or indicators that can be used as guidelines to determine the democratic selection of candidates will consist of 4 (four) indicators, that are: (1) Candidacy; (2) Selectorates; (3) The level of centralization/ decentralization of selection; and (4) How are candidates nominated?


Introduction
Political parties are essential actors and institutions in almost any conceivable system of representative democracy (Aylott, 2013). However, Political party, compared to parliamentary instituitions, is a new phenomenon in the democratic political system since it has recently appeared (Amal, 2009). According to Ichlasul Amal, political party is more a consequence than a cause of a system of representation or democracy (Amal, 2009). The system of representation developed long before the emergence of political parties. However, current conditions show that the system of representative democracy and political party are two inseparable entities. Jan Teorell stated, No modern democratic state has been able to do without political parties (Teorell, 1999). Parties are the primary institutions of representative democracy (Dalton, 1988).
One of the crucial functions of political parties is doing recruitment of prospective candidates for public officials (Cross, 2008). There is broad agreement amongst party scholars that candidate selection is one of the crucial functions performed by political parties in representative democracies (Gauja, 2010). It might be said to be almost a minimum function of political parties (Seligman, 1958). Some scholars stated that the universal function of candidate selection has been used as the main indicator to distinguish political parties from other political organizations (Cross, 2008;Field and Schwemmer, 2008). Through this function, political parties will determine whether a person has the qualities needed to be a people's representative and carries out his role properly (Silvester, 2012). A party that cannot attract and then nominate candidates surrenders its elemental opportunity for power (Seligman, 1961). Therefore, it is not excessive if Article 22E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution grants exclusive rights to political parties as the only party nominating citizens as a legislative candidate.
In carrying out this political recruitment function, political parties must be careful because the results will not only risk the fate of political parties in election, but also the quality of parliament and the government as a whole (Gauja, 2010). The candidates who will be appointed as legislative candidates and then to be elected as people's representative in the election are the people who will be entrusted with the task of making important decisions in the state so that the good management of the state and the fate of the people, will ultimately be determined by the quality of the members of its parliament.
Therefore, it has long been recognized that party selection procedures, in determining the choice put before the electorate, are of central importance in political recruitment (Mitchell and Bradbury, 2004). In what way or method a legislative prospective candidate is determined as a legislative candidate becomes very important as the importance of the electoral system itself -primarily in the context of strengthening the building of democracy (Rahat, 2009). Election law stipulates that the selection of prospective candidates must be conducted democratically and openly. Article 241 of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning on General Election reads: (1) Election Contesting Political Parties select candidates for members of the Legislative Councils (DPR), Provincial Legislative Councils (DPRD Provinsi), and Regional Legislative Councils (DPRD Kabupaten/Kota). (2) Selection of prospective candidates as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be conducted democratically and openly in accordance with the statutes, bylaws, and/or internal regulations of the Election Contesting Political Parties. Even though normatively the laws and regulations mandate that the selection of prospective legislative candidates must be carried out democratically and openly, the fact is much further off. The selection process by political parties seems closed so there is no clarity about how the selection method is applied. The determination of prospective candidates for legislative candidates is still far from democratic, because the final determinant is determined more by a handful of the party's central executive board (DPP) elite, even in certain contexts only determined by one political party chairman. This phenomenon is certainly inseparable from the management of political parties that are still very oligarchic even personalistic. The implication is that the participation of members and the wider community in the process of selecting party candidates for public official is very low.
The phenomenon of the prospective candidate selection for the candidates carried out with a closed and undemocratic selection pattern and ignoring broad participation from the community resulted increasing disappointment of the people towards the performance of the elected candidates. Often what is decided by the people's representatives is something contrary to what the majority wants. So, it is not surprising that the results of a national survey conducted by Poltracking Indonesia put Legislative Councils (DPR) as the lowest institution regarding the level of community satisfaction among the 13 democratic and law enforcement institutions surveyed. The majority of the people underestimate the performance of the parliament, such as in the field of legislation, DPR not only in a quantitative manner always fails to achieve the target of completing the bill according to the Prolegnas plan, but also in terms of quality, many laws have been challenged to the Constitutional Court. On the budget function is also very bad. Several cases of corruption that have been exposed show that the DPR, which should be responsible for ensuring that state funds are used maximally for the benefit of the people, on the contrary misused and corrupted to fulfill their personal interests. Therefore, determining whether democratic or not the criteria of selection method of prospective legislative candidates that have been fully left to each internal political party must be immediately terminated because the fact is that what is practiced by political parties is non-democratic methods. Although in the end political parties will still be given autonomy in regulating and determining the method of selection of candidates for their respective candidates, the state through the instrument of the law still needs to provide guidelines on the minimum standard formulation that must be considered by political parties so that the selection of prospective candidates produced can be qualified as selection results that have met democratic and open criteria. This criterion is important not only for political parties and the entire wider community concerned, but also for election organizers to be a guideline in determining whether democratic or not the candidate selection will be carried out by all parties participating in the election. If there are certain parties that do not carry out the mandate of this law, the General Elections Commission (KPU) must refuse to validate the list of candidates whose selection process does not meet the democratic and open criteria.
Based on the background outlined above, there are two issues that will be answered in this article, they are: (1) Why does the selection process for prospective legislative candidates have to be conducted democratically? and (2) What are the parameters for qualifying that the selection process for prospective legislative candidates is democratic?

Methodology
This research is a normative legal research. Normative legal research examines the principles or rules of law as a building system associated with a legal event that is intended to provide legal arguments as a basis for determining whether an event is right or wrong and how it should be according to law (Dewata, and Achmad, 2010). The approach used is the statute approach, that is, by examining all laws and regulations relating to legal issues with this research (Marzuki, 2009). Research sources consist of primary legal materials namely legal material that is authoritative, and secondary legal material namely all publications on law that are not official documents. It will also use non-legal material sources. Data collection is carried out through literature study by referring to primary and secondary legal material sources and non-legal materials.

Urgency of Prospective Candidate Selection for Legislative Members Democratically
Selection of prospective candidates will be one form of manifestation of the political party function in political recruitment. However, political recruitment has a broader meaning than candidate selection. Czudnowski defined political recruitment as: 'the process through which individuals are inducted into active political roles' (Field and Siavelis, 2008). Further, the candidate selection is: The predominantly extralegal process by which a political party decides which of the persons legally eligible to hold an elective public office will be designated on the ballot and in election communications as its recommended and supported candidate or list of candidates. Meanwhile, Peter M. Siavelis and Scott Morgenstern provided an understanding of political recruitment as 'how potential candidates are attracted to compete for political office. While candidate selection is interpreted as the processes by which candidates are chosen from among the pool of potential candidates (Siavelis and Morgenstern, 2008).
Parties adopt a specific method for choosing candidates for a variety of reasons: 1) it is required by law, 2) they want to increase their votes, 3) it is part of the party's ideology and 4) the size of the party (Akirav, 2018). In practice, parties use different procedures to nominate their candidates. These procedures range from less participative methods, such as nomination by the party leader, to more democratic procedures, such as primaries, in which party members or voters choose the party's candidate (Aragón, 2014). Forty years ago, it was very much the norm that candidates

Article History
Submitted 20 June 2020 -Revision Required 11 November 2020 -Accepted 21 April 2021 would be selected in unabashedly top-down processes, but this has changed over time. Today many parties have expanded their selectorates beyond the traditional boundaries (Mikulska & Scarrow, 2010). Consequently, one of the trends that occur in developed democracy countries in the world shows a symptom where the selection for legislative candidates is carried out more democratically and inclusively, involving more parties in it (Field and Siavelis, 2008). The basic question is, what makes some countries adopt a model of candidate selection democratically? In the view of Reuven Y. Hazana and Gerrit Voerman, there are several explanations that can be put forward, that is: "The first is the need to attract members, and to expand the base of party loyalty. The second is the general decline of social hierarchies, which has made party members less willing to be blind supporters of the party and more likely to take an interest in party policy and recruitment. The third is the changing nature of the party, such as the move toward less ideology and more inclusion.
The fourth is the incentive to mobilize new or underrepresented interests by allowing the voters to take part in the selection of candidates who appeal to them. A fifth possible answer is to improve the party image and to increase legitimacy, particularly in the era of the mass media's central role in electoral campaigning. A sixth is electoral crisis, such as a significant defeat that forces the party to adapt in order to maximize its chances for winning (Hazana and Voerman, 2006)." The application of more democratic and inclusive method in selecting legislative candidates will bring some benefits that would not be obtained if political parties used the opposite way/method. These benefits are not only for political parties, but also for sider society and general the growth of democracy in the country itself. First, the benefits for political parties i.e to prevent a decline of members. In recent decades, political parties have lost members rapidly. The trend is general in all major democracies, especially young age groups (Hooghe and Kern, 2013). Therefore, many parties democratised their candidate selection methods in order to counter the decline in party membership (Rahat and Shapira, 2017). Internal democratic party procedures have a positive influence on the representation of voter aspirations and strengthen party organization because this can attract new members and create space for new ideas (Surbakti and Supriyanto, 2013). Increased public support will certainly provide capital and great opportunities for political parties to win the election (Sanbonmatsu, 2002). It must be honestly recognized, the highest aim of political party establishment only to gain power by winning the election. "…Parties exist in order to win elections, and party policy is responsive to what voters want rather than what the party believes is best. Parties are not seen as programmatic or ideological, but rather as power-seeking and votemaximizing. They will be prepared to modify their behavior in whatever way necessary in order to achieve their goal of winning as many votes as possible (Murray, 2010)." Second, the benefits for the community. A study conducted by Mikulska & Scarrow; Norell; Calcagno & Westley; and Clausen pointed out that, in Britain and Europe, the democratic selection process of candidates is directly proportional to the satisfaction of the wider community with the democratic system itself. Thus, the society will tend to actively participate not only at the candidate selection stage but also at the time the election is held. The inclusive selectorates which found in U.K. are associated with higher congruence between representatives and voters. Democratic selections might also encourage citizens to participate not only in the selection stage but also on election day. Indeed, Norell found that party democratization has a positive effect on voter turnout and satisfaction with democracy in European elections, and there is some evidence that open primary elections lead to higher voter turnout. Involvement in intraparty decision-making processes makes voters believe that their opinion matters, ultimately improving citizens' attitudes such as satisfaction with democracy. Democratic selection processes' effect on satisfaction with democracy, thus, works via their effect on voters' perception of parties and/or voters' perception of their own efficacy. When parties democratize their selection processes, voters' perceptions of the process as fair and transparent intensify, and their efficacy levels increase as they are given the chance and ability to select candidates (even if they do not take up the opportunity and actually participate in the process). As voters' perceptions of parties' image improve, and voters' perceptions of their own efficacy increase, voters' satisfaction levels increase as well (Shomer, Put, and Gedalya, 2016).
Another positive effect of democratization of democratic legislative recruitment is that political parties that use procedures that are internally democratic tend to elect capable and desired leaders (legislative candidates) by the public, adopting more responsive policies (Surbakti and Supriyanto, 2013). Thus, public complaints in every election about the low quality of the major candidates can find a solution. The availability of qualified candidates is certainly a necessity, in view of that candidates -who if elected in an election will be appointed as members of the legislature -will ultimately represent the interests of the public at large. Therefore, whether good or not the quality of the legislative members will greatly affect the fate and interests of the community itself. According to Jo Silvester on 2012, to make candidates be able to carry out their duties properly as members of parliament if they are elected later, there are 6 competencies that must be possessed, they are: "(i) Communication Skills: the capacity to communicate messages clearly and persuasively across a variety of audiences and media contexts; (ii) Intellectual skills: the ability to understand, learn and prioritise complex information quickly and present ideas in a transparent manner; (iii) Relating to People: the capacity to relate easily to people from all backgrounds, demonstrate tolerance, approachability and the ability to inspire trust in others; (iv) Leading and Motivating: the capacity for leading and motivating people by recognising their contribution and providing support when required; (v) Resilience and Drive: an ability to cope effectively and positively with and remain persistent in the face of challenge, setbacks and criticism; dan (vi) Political Conviction: a commitment to Party principles and public service, including integrity and courage in disseminating and defending beliefs." Further, problems that have been often complained by the wider society that the legislators favor the interests of political parties and forget the interests of their constituents will be prevented or at least be minimalized. The reason is, according to Peter M. Siavelis and Scott Morgenstern, inclusiveness in the selection of porspective candidates will have implications for strengthening the commitment of legislative candidates to the interests of constituents and constituents will also be more loyal to the candidates. While exclusivity will only grow the commitment of legislative candidates to the interests of political parties (Field,and Siavelis, 2008).
Third, benefits for the growth and improvement of the democracy quality. It should be understood that the use of a democratic and inclusive legislative candidate selection method is an implementation of political party obligation to democratize internal political parties. Candidate candidacy becomes an important test to assess the strength of internal democracy in party organizations. Gallagher argues that in what way political parties choose their candidates, it can be used as a parameter of how democratic political parties are in carrying out their internal affairs (Cross, 2008).
Nowadays, the election of an inclusive candidate has become the most popular model for implementing intra-party democracy (Wolkenstein, 2016). Wilhelm Hofmeister and Karsten Grabow on 2011 stated that; Intra-party democracy is necessary in order to increase the influence and contribution of the politically involved citizens in a party. A democratic state cannot be governed by parties with undemocratic structures. Legal guidelines exist, therefore, in many countries, obliging the parties to also respect democratic procedures in their inner processes. However, in reality this is often disregarded. However, political parties as a main organization form in modern democracy surely stated that such organization must be in line with the real democracy norms (Meyer, 2012).
The practice of party democratization internally is not a goal, but rather a means that will have a positive impact on the state and the development of democracy in society. As the 19th century socialists argued that internal political democracy was a prerequisite that had to be done so that democracy at the state level could be realized. Political parties needed to be internally democratic if democracy at the level of the state was to be attained (Ware, 1979). Why? because a democratic programme cannot be advanced by an undemocratic party (Hansen and Saglie, 2005). Selection of more democratic candidates will contribute to the fulfillment of four dimensions of democracy: "(i) a high rate of meaningful political participation, (ii) representation of relevant social forces and various opinions, (iii) real competition on safe seats or safe positions on the parties 'candidate list, and (iv) a viable electoral connection that will pressure the elected to be responsive to the needs and grievances of the public (Rahat, 2009)."

Parameters of The Selection Method for Democratic Prospective Legislative Members
Article 241 paragraph (2) of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 7-year 2017 concerning General Elections only states that; selection of prospective candidates must be done democratically and openly. However, there is no further explanation of what is meant by democratic and open. The criteria and size are also unclear so there is the potential for violations. The law gives freedom to each political party to freely interpret the democratic and open meaning and regulate it independently through the statutes/bylaws or internal party rules. Thus, the legislators gave a "blank cheque" to political parties to make rules according to their willing. In fact, it is well-known that political parties as institutions that support democracy in Indonesia have long been very undemocratic, corrupt, and far from the people's aspirations. So, it is very possible that the internal regulation by political parties regarding the selection of candidates will not heed the mandate of the act, or at least it is potential for a reduction in the meaning of 'democratic and open'. To prevent this, it becomes very urgent that the law provides clear regulations on the rules or criteria regarding the selection process of democratic and open selection for prospective legislative candidates. The selection performance for prospective candidates who do not meet the criteria referred to in the law must be considered undemocratic and the General Elections Commission (KPU) has the right to reject the list of candidates submitted by the political parties involved. Based on what outlined above, political parties that open up opportunities for the whole people without exception as long as they meet the shooting requirements as regulated in the Election Law are categorized as political parties that carry out the selection process of candidates in an inclusive manner. On the contrary, if the nomination is only for political party administrators with rigid restrictions, it is an exclusive mechanism. Between those two continuums -where the candidacy applies to all members of political parties (without restrictions and conditions) -falls into the middle category.
Second, the selectorates, which are agencies or parties who have the authority to elect the legislative candidates. Generally, these agencies or parties can consist of one person, several people, and many people. According to William Cross on 2008, The number of voters are eligible to participate ranges from one (when a party's leader selects candidates) to a small party elite, to a larger party institution, to all party members, and, finally, to all voters who are partisans of the party.
Assessments/parameters of whether or not democratic the selection mechanism for the next prospective legislative candidate can be assessed from anyone who has the authority to choose the prospective candidate for then determined as a legislative candidate. Thus, those who are entitled to be involved in determining the legislative candidates is a central issue to measure whether or not democratic the candidate selection method. Based on the number of the selectorates, Reuven Y. Hazan and Gideon Rahat grouped them into 5 selector groups, they are: (1)  The less or even only 1 (one) person determines in the selection of legislative candidates, the mechanism is categorized as a mechanism that is less or even General Electorate

Selected Party Agency
Single Leader

Non-Selected Party Agency
Party Members undemocratic (exclusive). On the contrary, the more parties involved in determining the determination of prospective candidates, the mechanism can be assessed as a democratic mechanism (inclusive). Lars Bille on 2010 argues: ... the greater the role of individual party members, the more democratically the parties conduct their internal affairs. Therefore, the selection authority of legislative candidates which is only determined by the general chairperson of political parties is qualified as the most exclusive or undemocratic method, while the selection of prospective candidates involving the wider society (constituents) is the method that is considered the most inclusive or democratic. This is in line with Gideon Rahat's opinion that, the more the power of selecting candidates is diffused among several distinct political actors, the more democratic the system. Meanwhile, if the determination of the candidates is carried out by the selection committee, it is classified as a moderate mechanism.
Based on the foregoing, to be called democratic, a selection of absolute candidates must involve many parties and should not only become the monopoly of a handful of elites, even less only by a general chairman of a political party. The certainty of involving many parties in determining the prospective candidates is in harmony with the meaning and values of democracy itself. As understood, democracy is a mechanism for making important decisions in the state based on majority votes (majority). Thus, democracy requires broad participation among parties who have the skills and authority in the election or decision making. So it is not excessive if the level of participation is one indicator to assess whether a democracy is good or not. Participation, in fact, is often seen as an important indicator for measuring the democratic degree of elections, both within and between parties (Sandri, 2012).
In addition, the requirement for selectorates in the legislative candidate selection process involves many parties because the democratic political system has a belief that power tends to be corrupt/misused if only controlled by a handful of peopleeven if only by one person. Thus, involving as many parties as possible in the selection process for candidates will be the best step to prevent or at least reduce the potential for abusing power. And this is actually the core lesson of democracy. But unfortunately, most of the settings that determine these selectorates are determined top-down so they are less participative. Who is included in the selectorate, for example, is a decision that needs to be made prior to the actual selection process. In practice, this decision is usually made in top-down fashion by the party elite (Wolkenstein, 2016). Most political party chairmen try to avoid formalizing rules and building candidate selection procedures. Because in that way, they will still have full control over the selection of legislative candidates.
Third, the level of centralization/decentralization of selection. In this context, the measurement to determine whether democratic or not the selection of legislative candidate is measured by whether the selection process is all done at the national level (centralized) or carried out at the local level (decentralized) at the provincial or even district/city level. When a legislative candidate is chosen exclusively by the party's central board without any procedure that allows for the involvement of the regional board, -this qualifies as a centralized pole method. Meanwhile, it will be referred to as a decentralized pole election, if the candidate is chosen exclusively by voters (administrators) of the local level party and/or by internal party social groups, and/or interest groups.
In much of the literature it is said implicitly that selection made at the local level is more democratic, because the decision is decentralized to those who will be represented by candidates as Lars Bille on 2010 believes that the phenomenon of decentralization is related to democratization. The less centralized the authority making the final decisions in a party, in the case of the selection and candidacy of candidates, the better are the possibilities for a greater number of people to participate in the process, i.e., the process will be more inclusive.

T E R R I T O R I A L
In various academic studies, the choice of whether the party will use the method of centralization or decentralization in the selection of candidates, one of which is influenced by the electoral system. In a closed electoral system, parties tend to select legislative candidates in centralized way, while in the electoral system with an open list system, it tends to be made in a decentralized way.
Fourth, Voting and Appointment System. The fourth parameter explains that the selection for the prospective legislative candidates can be done by voting (election) and also by appointment. Judging from the aspect of whether democratic or not these two methods, the voting mechanism/method is certainly more democratic than the determination/appointment method, because the election method positions all the votes in the same/equal condition, while the appointment is usually only represented by a handful of elites.
Selection of prospective legislative candidates will be qualified using a voting system when the process of determining someone to become a legislative candidate is done through the selection procedure by the parties who are given the authority to do so. On the contrary, when candidacy is determined without using voting procedures, the method is referred to as the appointment system. In the appointment system, candidates are appointed without the need for approval by any institution and party, as well as any organ, except the candidating organ itself. In a voting system, all candidates are elected through a voting procedure, and no other voter party can change the composition of the candidate list that has been determined by a majority of vote.
The difference in the mechanism of selection for prospective candidates through these two methods (Voting Systems and Appointment Systems) will greatly affect the level of control held by the party over the composition of the candidate list. When the determination of prospective candidate list is done by appointment, the composition can be controlled by political parties. The list of candidates is as much as possible to illustrate the balance that important party organizations profit to consider, that is between pressure and demands of inter-party interests (electoral image, personal popularity) and intra-party (loyalty, factional, social and sectarian representation).
On the other hand, when the candidate list is carried out by an election mechanism, the party organization cannot control its composition, because it is determined based on the aggregation of voters' votes. Therefore, political parties that use the voting system, also tend to use representation correction mechanisms, such as functional and territorial districts or seats provided, and multi-round voting systems and Proportional Representation (PR), to ensure a balanced composition of the candidate list.

Conclusion
Based on the analysis and discussion above, some conclusions can be drawn as follows: First, the importance of the election of legislative member prospective candidates should be done democratically (inclusively) by the political parties because this mechanism promises some benefits for society, political parties, and the quality of democracy in general, including (1) attracting new members and increasing public support for political parties and creating some spaces for new ideas; (2) The democratic candidate election process is directly proportional to the general public's satisfaction toward the democratic system itself. Therefore, the society or public will tend to participate actively, not only at the candidate election stage but also at the time the election is held; (3) tend to provide capable candidate which is intended by Appointment Systems

Appointment-Voting Systems
Voting Systems enhanced Representational Control reduced

Article History
Submitted 20 June 2020 -Revision Required 11 November 2020 -Accepted 21 April 2021 public, and adopt more responsive policies, (4) strengthening commitment of the candidates toward the interest of constituents, also, the constituents will be more loyal to the candidates; and (5) creating and strengthening the process of democracy in political policies (intra-party democracy.
Second, parameters or indicators that can be used as guidelines to determine whether the election of the candidates runs democratically or not consist of four indicators: (1) Inclusiveness of Candidacy; (2) Inclusiveness of Selectorates i.e. those who have the authority to elect the legislative candidates; (3) The level of centralization or decentralization of election; and (4) The mechanism of election (voting procedure or by being appointed).