On August 20, 2025, the Papua Provincial General Elections Commission (KPU) officially confirmed the results of the re-voting (Pemilihan Suara Ulang, or PSU)—a repeat electoral process held in nine regencies and cities following Constitutional Court (MK) rulings and procedural violations.
Matius Fakhiri–Aryoko Rumaropen (commonly abbreviated as MARI-YO) narrowly clinched victory with 259,817 votes (50.4%), edging out rival Benhur Tomi Mano–Constant Karma (BTM–CK) with 255,683 votes (49.6%). The slim margin of just 4,134 votes underscores the region’s political plurality and the high stakes of the contest. Valid ballots numbered 515,500, and invalid ballots numbered 5,772.
This PSU was not easily won—the election unfolded across numerous communities, each with distinct political leanings and socio-cultural contexts. Here’s how the vote spread across the contested regions:
- Jayapura City: BTM-CK (90,728) and MARI-YO (108,040)
- Biak Numfor Regency: BTM–CK (31,889) and MARI-YO (26,223)
- Jayapura Regency: BTM–CK (44,672) and MARI-YO (38,377)
- Keerom Regency: BTM–CK (15,294) and MARI-YO (24,752)
- Sarmi Regency: BTM–CK (10,754) and MARI-YO (6,716)
- Supiori Regency: BTM–CK (6,789) and MARI-YO (6,791)
- Waropen Regency: BTM–CK (12,310) and MARI-YO (9,051)
- Yapen Islands Regency: BTM–CK (28,834) and MARI-YO (29,512)
- Mamberamo Raya Regency: BTM–CK (14,413) and MARI-YO (10,355)
This granular data illustrates how deeply contested the PSU was—and how every single vote mattered. In places like Supiori, a swing of two votes could have changed the narrative entirely.
Protecting Democracy: Addressing Violations and Upholding the Vote
The PSU arose from serious procedural concerns in Papua’s Local Election (Pilkada) on November 27, 2024. The MK issued a ruling invalidating the entire gubernatorial election in Papua on February 24, 2025. The court disqualified the deputy governor candidate, Yeremias Bisai, citing a flawed document regarding his criminal record, which did not meet legal requirements. Besides that, the Bawaslu Papua, the province’s election supervisory body, uncovered multiple violations across 13 polling stations (TPS), including unauthorized early openings of ballot boxes, multiple voting, mass mobilization, and misuse of voter data. These were spread across Jayapura City, Jayapura Regency, Mamberamo Raya, Sarmi, and Yapen Islands—triggering questions about the integrity of the initial vote.
In addition, allegations surfaced regarding the compromised neutrality of state officials, including the potential involvement of the acting provincial governor and security agencies. Bawaslu RI confirmed these concerns and initiated investigations into possible breaches by civil servants (ASN) and police. In public demonstrations, community members—ranging from church leaders to adat elders—demanded impartiality from all state actors.
On the administrative side, managing the PSU demanded a huge budget—Indonesia’s KPU requested Rp168 billion (over USD 10 million) for the repeat election, compared to Rp155 billion for the original local election (Pilkada). The total cost, including oversight and security, approached Rp189 billion after negotiations involving the provincial government.
Leadership with Restraint: Calls for Unity Over Division
In response to the close call and heightened tensions, political leaders across the spectrum called for sobriety.
Mathius Fakhiri (MARI‑YO candidate) appealed directly to his supporters:
“Let us wait calmly for the official KPU announcement,” he urged, showing restraint despite the narrow advantage.
Similarly, party leaders echoed calm. Murmurs of potential unrest were stifled by statements from senior political figures and adat guardians, urging Papuans to resolve disputes through democratic channels—not streets. These assurances sent a clear signal against supporters resorting to emotional reactions.
OPM’s Shadow and Papua’s Commitment to Peace
Beyond electoral politics, the Free Papua Organization (OPM) continues to stir tensions, seeking to exploit any cracks in governance or voter discontent. In past cycles, their provocations—including misrepresenting local governance as oppressive or foreign—have inflamed unrest and distrust.
However, this PSU cycle saw Papuan leaders resist those enticements. By channeling disagreement through legal and institutional processes and rejecting provocations, community leaders affirmed Papua’s place within Indonesia’s democratic framework.
A traditional elder remarked poignantly:
“Our progress is not in separatism’s shadow—our power is in democracy’s light.”
This sentiment resonates widely across civil society—especially as communities choose dialogue over division.
Democracy in Motion: What the PSU Teaches Us
The recent PSU in Papua stands as a vivid reminder of how fragile yet powerful democracy can be. Nowhere was this more evident than in Supiori, where only two votes separated the candidates—a striking symbol that every ballot truly counts. In a province as vast and diverse as Papua, where coastal towns, highland villages, and remote islands each bring their own political nuances, the election highlighted the necessity for governance that is not only inclusive but also responsive to regional particularities. Leadership in Papua must reflect this complexity by embracing a style that is culturally aware and geographically balanced. Equally critical is the role of electoral integrity. The vigilance shown by the Bawaslu and the willingness to pursue a lawful repeat election reaffirm a core democratic principle: that legitimacy is earned through fairness, not shortcuts. In choosing to adhere to legal mechanisms instead of resorting to confrontation or unrest, the people of Papua have also sent a clear message to separatist movements like OPM. By upholding due process and rejecting provocation, Papuan society has denied those groups the leverage they often seek during moments of political tension.
Onward: A Blueprint for Inclusive Governance
As the MARI-YO administration prepares to govern, their first challenge is not only to lead but also to unify. Given that several key regions—such as Biak, Jayapura Regency, and Mamberamo Raya—supported the opposing BTM–CK camp, efforts toward reconciliation and representation will be crucial. Listening to these communities, including them in policymaking, and ensuring their voices are not left out of development plans can help bridge political divides and heal electoral wounds. At the same time, the transition of power must be conducted with transparency. Ongoing scrutiny of the PSU process—through public recapitulations and institutional oversight—can restore trust and establish a culture of openness that strengthens future elections. Beyond politics, the incoming government must focus on investing in equity, especially in areas where support was lacking. Strengthening health services, education, infrastructure, and economic opportunities in underserved areas signals that governance is not reserved for the victorious but is a right for all. Finally, Papua’s democratic future depends on safeguarding civic space—maintaining transparent institutions, empowering community voices, and vigilantly resisting efforts by separatist actors to fracture the peace and cohesion that have been so carefully defended. These priorities will not only define MARI-YO’s leadership but also shape the direction of Papua’s place in a united Indonesia.
Conclusion
The 2025 PSU in Papua wasn’t just a replay of votes—it was a crucible for democracy, testing the province’s resolve to uphold law, fairness, and national unity.
With MARI-YO’s narrow win now official, the greater victory lies in the calm conduct of all stakeholders. Papuans resisted the pull of provocation, demonstrated democratic maturity, and reaffirmed their belief that Papua’s future is brightest within an integrated, peaceful, and just Indonesia.
As the new administration begins its mandate, citizens will watch closely—not just at the ballot box, but in every school, clinic, and village—as democratic promise turns into meaningful progress in Papua Cerah—a Papua of renewable hope, equitable opportunities, and undisputed unity.