The dynamic of democracy in Indonesia which is relatively left behind compared to other aspects and analysis on democracy from various perspectives which is often ended on an abstract and general description and explanation may surely bring unclear picture to the public regarding the level of democratization in the history of Indonesia.
Most studies exploring democracy in Indonesia, both in New Order and Post-New Order period did not attempt to assess level of democracy as conducted by institutions like Freedom House that has been instigating annual review since 1973.
Moreover, analysis on political life in Indonesia is often quite qualitative and based upon secondary data, or even primary one. Various dimension of democracy such as competition, participation, and accountability) in certain period of time have not been well apprehended.
Therefore, it is necessary to compose indicator on Accountability of Democracy which is also related to Indicator of Freedom House so that we can obtain the intact picture of democracy.
This preliminary study is aimed to compose indicator of democracy, specifically on the accountability of legislature toward its constituents by analyzing influential factors of accountability and then to propose policy recommendation to the improvement of democracy accountability.
From the analysis supported by survey and interview with in-house expert, the conclusions are among others : accountability of legislature toward their constituents are relatively low depicted by their performance such as visit and also reporting. If this is related to the indicator of Freedom House, hence, level of accountability is nonetheless above score 4 (Semi- Authoritarian) or can be seen as "Elitist" and "Oligarchic"
This situation is related to (1) indistinct and irresolute assignment as stipulated by rule and regulation to the legislature to communicate with their constituents, and to perform the function of representative; (2) limited support of funds; (3) lack of public pressure (from press, university, and mass organization) toward legislature and also toward political party in order to be more responsive andaspiratory to their constituents; (4) Contact and communications between legislature and their constituent do not represent the upmost part in the political history of Indonesia; ( 5) Election system by choosing photo of the candidates which brings an abstract representation whereas the figure is not really cradled.
Paying attention to the conclusion and its supporting factors, hence, the recommendations are: to stipulate clearly in the rule and regulation. the obligation of legislature to communicate and make report regarding activities and visit to their constituents and also regulation guaranting constituents rights to impeach their representatives when they did not perform and even more made misstep;need more public space and optimal independent community organization including General Election Commission (KPU) to oversee legislature as a form of moral responsibility and their own intellectuality; the change of election system represent the most important substance to be conducted, so that people can be more realistic in voting their representatives by emphasizing at figure or person (not photograph); despitefully adjustment of budget requirement also need attentionto support the communication activities with their constituents with a clear responsibility and plan.