Local Chief Executive Political Accountability In Indonesia: A Historical-Legal Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the local chief executive’s (LCE) political accountability in the Local Government Acts (LGAs). Using historical and theoretical approaches, this article examines the influence of the political interests of the regimes on the changes of provisions on LCE’s political accountability in the LGAs from 1945 to date. The LCE was accountable to the local council (DPRD) from 1945-1958 and 1999-2004; and to the central government from 1959-1998. While since 2004, the LCEs are only had to report -but not be accountable- to the Central Government, local council and the local community. Two important academic questions arise when dealing with this phenomenon. First, to what extent are the political interests of the democratic and authoritarian regimes shaped the changes of provisions on LCE political accountability in the LGAs? Second, how do the provisions conform to the accountability principles? This study’s result shows that the rulers’ political orientation shaped the LCEs’ political accountability system and ignored the principles of accountability, leading to the inconsistent institutional design of LCE accountability. Furthermore, the LGA has yet to regulate the electoral/political accountability of LCEs, which should be a consequenceof adopting the LCE direct election. We recommend precise arrangements on the accountability principle in the Constitution to avoid the politicization of laws by legislators according to their political interests and improve the role of Citizens through a recall petition to strengthen the enforcement mechanisms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".