Articles
DOI DOI: 10.62441/actainnovations.v63i.1131

STRENGTHENING THE INTEGRITY OF REGIONAL HEAD ELECTION GOVERNANCE THROUGH ELECTORAL TRANSPARENCY PUBLIC LEGAL EDUCATION MODEL

Taopik Iskandar1, Irfan Nursetiawan 2, Kiki Endah 2, Arif Zainudin 3
  1. 1 Universitas Galuh, Ciamis, West Java, Indonesia.
  2. 2 Universitas Galuh, Ciamis, West Java, Indonesia.
  3. 3 Universitas Pancasakti Tegal, Central Java, Indonesia.

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the strengthening of governance integrity in Regional Head Elections through the implementation of electoral transparency integrated with legal outreach in Ciamis Regency. The research employs an empirical legal approach using qualitative methods. Data were collected through in-depth interviews, observation, documentation, and literature review, and subsequently analyzed thematically based on the dimensions of participation, transparency, accountability, inclusivity, and legal certainty. The findings indicate that the governance of regional elections in Ciamis Regency possesses a relatively solid procedural foundation, characterized by a conducive electoral environment, the availability of official information channels, tiered public outreach, and relatively high voter participation rates. However, these conditions have not yet fully established a substantive democracy, as public engagement remains concentrated on the act of voting, while participation in the nomination, oversight, and post-election evaluation stages remains limited. The implementation of electoral transparency also remains largely formalistic, as information is not yet fully conveyed in a manner that is proactive, integrated, easily understood, inclusive, and traceable—particularly regarding the handling of reports on alleged violations. Furthermore, political pragmatism, money politics, limited access for vulnerable groups, a reluctance to report violations, and perceptions of inadequate follow-up on infractions continue to affect electoral integrity. Strengthening the integrity of regional head elections (Pilkada) requires proactive transparency via an integrated information portal, sustained and targeted legal education, participatory oversight, whistleblower protection, consistent law enforcement, improved accessibility, and multi-stakeholder collaboration. These findings yield a model for strengthening local democracy that positions transparency, legal education, public participation, and institutional accountability as an inclusive and sustainable governance ecosystem for regional elections.

How to Cite

Iskandar, T., Nursetiawan , I., Endah , K., & Zainudin , A. (2026). STRENGTHENING THE INTEGRITY OF REGIONAL HEAD ELECTION GOVERNANCE THROUGH ELECTORAL TRANSPARENCY PUBLIC LEGAL EDUCATION MODEL. ACTA INNOVATIONS, 63, 632–640. https://doi.org/10.62441/actainnovations.v63i.1131
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

References

  1. 1. Alghannam, B., Skaik, R., Alsaber, A., & Almayyan, W. (2026). Perceived Information Assurance in Conversational Systems: A Pillar-Based Instrument and Data Mining Analysis. IEEE Access, 14, 54889–54902. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2026.3677735
  2. 2. Andersen, R., Tilley, J., & Heath, A. F. (2005). Political knowledge and enlightened preferences: Party choice through the electoral cycle. British Journal of Political Science, 35(2), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123405000153
  3. 3. Anguelov, L. G. (2020). Monitoring arrangements for outsourced public services: the importance of service characteristics for the distribution of oversight responsibilities. International Public Management Journal, 23(2), 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2019.1692114
  4. 4. Bastianen, A., & Keuffer, N. (2025). Are the normative rationales of local autonomy related to democratic legitimacy justified? Evidence from 57 countries in Europe and beyond (1990–2020). Local Government Studies, 51(5), 869–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2024.2378128
  5. 5. Bertelli, A. M., & Falletti, V. (2025). Bureaucracy under pressure: Structural integrity and the ethics of democratic administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523251406200
  6. 6. Besley, T. (2005). Political Selection. www.fas.harvard.edu/research/greybook/principles.html
  7. 7. Brandsma, G. J. (2012). The effect of information on oversight: The European Parliament’s response to increasing information on comitology decision-making. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311429756
  8. 8. Chapman, E. B. (2019). The Distinctive Value of Elections and the Case for Compulsory Voting. American Journal of Political Science, 63(1), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12393
  9. 9. Elahi, K. Q. I. (2009). UNDP on good governance. International Journal of Social Economics, 36(12), 1167–1180. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290910996981
  10. 10. Etzioni, A. (2018). The limits of transparency. In Transparency, Society and Subjectivity: Critical Perspectives (pp. 179–201). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77161-8_9
  11. 11. Fabrizio, K. R., & Kim, E. H. (2019). Reluctant disclosure and transparency: Evidence from environmental disclosures. Organization Science, 30(6), 1207–1231. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1298
  12. 12. Hrechaniuk, S., Nishchymna, S., Puzyrnyi, V., Zlyvko, S., & Puzyrevskyi, M. (2025). Ensuring Transparency and Oversight of the Work of State and Municipal Authorities. Revista Administração Em Diálogo-RAD, 27, 94–112. https://doi.org/10.23925/2178-0080.2025v27iSI.73001
  13. 13. Hu, Z., Mellor, J., Wu, J., & Delisi, C. (2004). VisANT: an online visualization and analysis tool for biological interaction data. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-5-17
  14. 14. Kulachai, W., Lerdtomornsakul, U., & Homyamyen, P. (2023). Factors Influencing Voting Decision: A Comprehensive Literature Review. In Social Sciences (Vol. 12, Number 9). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12090469
  15. 15. Linebarger, C., & Salehyan, I. (2020). Electoral Integrity and Election-Related Conflict. Democracy and Security, 260–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/17419166.2020.1787158
  16. 16. Lopucki, L. M., & Weyrauch, W. O. (2010). A theory of legal strategy. In Legal strategies: How corporations use law to improve performance (pp. 41–87). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02135-0_4
  17. 17. Michels, A. (2011). Innovations in democratic governance: How does citizen participation contribute to a better democracy? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311399851
  18. 18. Michener, G., & Bersch, K. (2013). Identifying transparency. Information Polity, 18(3), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-130299
  19. 19. Mochtak, M., Lesschaeve, C., & Glaurdić, J. (2021). Voting and winning: perceptions of electoral integrity in consolidating democracies. Democratization, 28(8), 1423–1441. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2021.1918111
  20. 20. Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. In European Journal of General Practice (Vol. 24, Number 1, pp. 9–18). Taylor and Francis Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375091
  21. 21. Obulapathi, M. (2026). Electoral Reforms And Democratic Accountability: A Comparative Study. www.jpsijournal.com
  22. 22. Pratchett, L. (2004). Local Autonomy, Local Democracy and the “New Localism.” https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2004.00484.x
  23. 23. Ringel, L. (2019). Unpacking the Transparency-Secrecy Nexus: Frontstage and backstage behaviour in a political party. Organization Studies, 40(5), 705–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618759817
  24. 24. Saunders, B. (2012). The Democratic Turnout “Problem.” Political Studies, 60(2), 306–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00914.x
  25. 25. Schmidthuber, L., Ingrams, A., & Hilgers, D. (2021). Government Openness and Public Trust: The Mediating Role of Democratic Capacity. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13298
  26. 26. Stockemer, D. (2017). Electoral Participation: How to Measure Voter Turnout? Social Indicators Research, 133(3), 943–962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1410-6
  27. 27. Sun, Y., Ma, L., Mathew, J., & Zhang, S. (2006). An analytical model for interactive failures. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 91(5), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2005.03.014
  28. 28. Tariq, R., Zolkepli, I. A., & Ahmad, M. (2022). Political Participation of Young Voters: Tracing Direct and Indirect Effects of Social Media and Political Orientations. Social Sciences, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11020081
  29. 29. Udochukwu, I. S. (2024). Electoral Credibility as Precondition for Peace Building in Post-election Cycles: A Study of the 2023 General Election. www.najops.org.ng
  30. 30. Vandekerckhove, W., & Lewis, D. (2012). The Content of Whistleblowing Procedures: A Critical Review of Recent Official Guidelines. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(2), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1089-1
  31. 31. Xu, Z., Wang, Y., & Qian, Y. (2025). The design and application of in-depth interviews in primary care research. Chinese General Practice Journal, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgpj.2025.100062