Indonesia’s Political Outlook 2012

By Leonard C. Sebastian and Yoes C. Kenawas   

    

Synopsis

The major political events that dominated the news in 2011 are likely to continue to shape Indonesian politics in 2012. Election law reform and prospective candidates for the 2014 presidential election will draw most attention.                                                                

Commentary

2011 WAS a challenging year for the SBY administration. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono had to deal with a fragile political coalition under the auspices of a Joint Secretariat (Sekber). This coalition remains tenuous primarily because its pivotal members, the Golkar Party and the Prosperous and Justice Party (PKS), behave more like opposition parties than committed members of a coalition.

The fractious nature of the coalition was particularly evident prior to a mid-October 2011 cabinet reshuffle and further manifested in high profile corruption cases that tarnished the image of President Yudhoyono and discredited the Democrat Party (PD). It created a mutual-hostage situation among political parties as well as between the executive and legislative where neither was able to take excessive advantage of each other.   

Political trends for 2012

If the representatives of the political parties in Cabinet gave the impression that they supported the President’s policy initiatives, they did little to constrain their political party colleagues who sought to undermine him in Parliament. Yudhoyono has limited options to deal with this situation as he still needs support from these political parties to find the compromises necessary to ensure he leaves behind a credible legacy when  his presidency ends in 2014.

Political trends evident in 2011 will recur in 2012. The Joint Secretariat will remain an unreliable coalition. Golkar, PKS, and to some extent the United Development Party (PPP), will continue to play hardball on several unresolved issues, particularly the corruption scandals surrounding former PD treasurer M. Nazaruddin and the Bank Century case. These political risks will be exploited by the opposition Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan/PDIP), and by members of Yudhoyono’s coalition when they find it expedient to engineer political instability, thereby further compromising PD’s image among the electorate.

A corruption case which involved the bribing of most of Parliament’s finance commission to appoint Ms. Miranda Goeltom as a Senior Deputy Governor of Bank Indonesia in 2004 has entered a new phase with the recent arrest of businesswoman Nunun Nurbaeti in late 2011. This case is crucial owing  to its links with members of political parties, particularly PKS and the PDI-P. This situation provides the perfect window of opportunity for PD to strike back. 

Given the coalition’s shaky foundations, there  might be a possible overhaul of the coalition in 2012, initiated by Golkar and PKS. This is primarily because they hold the advantage, or to use the Bahasa Indonesia term - berada diatas angin.

Key Issues in 2012         

Debates on election law reform, particularly the minimum parliamentary threshold (PT), will be a major point of contention. While the big political parties PD, Golkar, PDIP want to raise the minimum threshold to four to five percent, PKS, the National Mandate Party (PAN), the National Awakening Party (PKB), PPP and other smaller parties want to retain the minimum threshold at three percent to make it easier for themselves to contest. PD is placed in a dilemma since the majority of its coalition partners come from smaller parties like PAN, PKB, and PPP. PD’s actions will determine whether loyalists like PAN would be forced to disengage from the current coalition. 

In 2012, more aspirants may announce their candidacy for the 2014 presidential election. Thus far, only Golkar Chair Aburizal Bakrie and PAN Chair Hatta Rajasa (the Coordinating Minister for the Economy and President Yudhoyono’s in-law) have accepted their party’s nomination. PD will likely keep its options open, possibly taking their cue from Yudhoyono on his preferred successor. PDIP’s position remains ambiguous. Will the party nominate former president Megawati Sukarnoputri or her daughter Puan Maharani? The Greater Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra) is likely to nominate its chairman, Prabowo Subianto.

Beyond the national political stage, there are a few key political developments in 2012 that merit attention. The first is the gubernatorial election in Jakarta and Aceh. The former is important because it involves the election of leaders of the nation’s capital, receives wide media coverage, and is a national barometer of other local elections. It will be ominous for the other provinces if the Jakarta race is compromised either through an inability to resolve election-related conflict, maintain security, or manage the electoral process.

Controversy surrounding the Aceh gubernatorial election was already evident in 2011. There was political tension between the Aceh Party (Partai Aceh) and incumbent Governor Irwandi Yusuf over a Constitutional Court decision.

The Constitutional Court annulled an Aceh special local Administration Law (Qanun) prohibiting independent candidates to run in the upcoming election. The Qanun promulgated in 2006 served to facilitate former Free Aceh Movement (GAM) members to contest in the 2006 election. According to the Qanun, independent candidates were only allowed to compete in the 2006 direct election when Aceh did not have local political parties. Currently, the local-based Partai Aceh asserts that Aceh has its own special Administration Law which is different from national law owing to the special status of Aceh. Partai Aceh maintains that the Aceh chapter of the General Election Commission should refer to that special Law, prohibiting independent candidates from running in the next election.

Aceh’s local regulations made to facilitate GAM’s requirements are in contradiction of national law. Consequently, security disturbances in the election and post-election phases remain a distinct possibility. If peace is to be maintained, Acehnese elites will need to exercise political maturity while the central government and the security forces must aim to manage the situation well. 

Complicated and Challenging       

The second issue is the performance of newly-elected commissioners of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), under its new head, Abraham Samad, who  was not a popular choice. It is rumoured  that the DPR or Parliament chose him to weaken the Commission. Will the new chairman be able to override public doubts about his capabilities and more importantly, have the courage to deal with high-profile corruption cases?

The third issue is the selection of the new commissioners for the General Election Commission (KPU) who are to take charge of the 2014 presidential and legislative elections. These commissioners must improve on the 2014 election given the controversies surrounding the election.

Had President Yudhoyono not won decisively in 2009, a national crisis would have arisen over the widespread allegations of election fraud. Political interests of the elite will play a crucial role in the selection process, which is likely to be complicated and challenging.


Leonard C. Sebastian is an Associate Professor and Coordinator of the Indonesia Programme and Yoes C. Kenawas is a programme Research Associate at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University


*Published by Rajaratnam School of International Studies

Political Dynasties in Indonesia: What Went Wrong?

As predicted, several Indonesian survey institutions announced that the pair of Ratu Atut Choisiah (incumbent) – Rano Karno (deputy regent of Tangerang) would win the 2011 Banten gubernatorial election. At the time this article is written, the Provincial General Election Commission has yet to announce the final result of the election.

However, the return of Ratu Atut to political office raises concerns about the monopoly of power concentrated in small groups of elite. Ratu Atut’s relatives hold several key public positions throughout Banten province. Furthermore, it raises the issue of political dynasties in post-Suharto Indonesia.  Banten is not exclusive, but the pattern is also evident in other provinces and at the national level. Dynastic politicians have occupied key positions in the public office positions as well as within the political party structure.

Political dynasty is, in fact, not a new phenomenon in Indonesia. Families such as the Sukarnos and Suhartos were very dominant in Indonesia politics. However, currently more families are rising at the national and local political stage.

The proliferation of political dynasties in Indonesia is inevitable. In a democratic society like India, the Philippines, including Indonesia the issue is not about how we prevent the formation of political dynasties, but how we prevent them from violating principles of democracy when obtaining political positions. In countries like Indonesia, the issue of political dynasties formation becomes more important because it could jeopardize the prospect of democratic consolidation. In addition, in the situation where there are pervasive structural defects in the current democracy practice, this phenomenon is not favorable to make Indonesian democracy become more mature in the long run. It could setback the ongoing process because public’s expectation towards a more equal distribution of power, after a long period of centralized authoritarian government, could be distorted. Optimism could turn into pessimism.

According to Dal Bó, Dal Bó, and Snyder (2009), democracy, in fact, provides the ground for political elites to centralize power in small groups of people. In a democratic society, each citizen has the same rights to pursue one’s political objectives. Better political capital, such as extensive elite and grassroots networks, brand name recognition, and presumably, opportunity to exploit public budget and facilities for their campaigns, provides a better chance for those dynastic politicians to defeat their non-dynastic competitors.

It is indeed an irony that democracy, allows centralization of power in small groups of elite. It opposes the original idea of democracy, which seeks to avoid power agglomeration in small groups of people. Democratic transformation, followed by democratic consolidation, are expected to prevent centralization of power in one or small of groups of political elite i.e. oligarchs. Having said that, what went wrong?

In fact, there is nothing wrong with the creation of political dynasties. It is inevitable and not against the principle of democracy as long as contending politicians respect the essential values of democracy. The problem arises when the process to form dynasties violates other principles of democracy. Therefore, there are three issues that need to be addressed in order to prevent dynastic politicians from violating democratic principles.

First, political parties are responsible to select and nominate its best cadre to compete in the election. Good selection and monitoring mechanisms of political parties will be beneficial not only to the voter but also, in the long-run, to the party itself. It will become the first controlling mechanism to prevent dynastic politicians to violate democratic principle. Therefore, political parties need to strengthen the mechanism of caderisation.

However, looking at current condition of political parties in Indonesia, whereby money politics and patron-client relations are still the main features in their political decision making, it would hard to see any progress in developing control mechanism in foreseeable future. In addition, it will only be effective if dynastic politicians use party as its main vehicle to nominate him/her. It will be useless if dynastic politicians choose to run as independent candidate. It leads us to see other available alternatives to prevent dynastic politicians to undermine the principles of democracy.

Minimum requirement for democracy is the presence of free and fair elections. Indonesia has conducted three general elections (including two direct presidential elections) and numerous local level elections. However, the fairness of those elections remain questioned. In 2010, the Constitutional Court handled 230 election disputes out of 240 elections across Indonesia. Many of them related to money politics, public official mobilization, to final voter register fraud.

In this sense, strengthening the coordination among the Election Oversight Committee, Election Commission and Indonesian police, both at national and local level, is vital and urgent. These agencies, must take serious action toward election frauds, which are potentially conducted by all competing candidates. However, due to the incumbency status and distinctive advantages of dynastic politicians, related agencies need to be more aware to potential violations they may conduct. Law enforcement is a feasible alternative to prevent all forms of election fraud including vote buying and misused of public money and facilities by dynastic politicians. However, it requires a strong political will from related stakeholders.

Finally, the most famous adagium of democracy is “from the people, by the people, and to the people”. It implies that citizen has the highest authority to decide what is best for them. Voters need to examine closely and carefully the background, past performances and programs of each candidate. Voters need to critically evaluate each candidate, particularly those with dynastic backgrounds.  To do so, voters need access to complete information of competing candidates which nowadays is made possible by the presence of various information channels.

Beyond knowing and examining the candidate’s background and programs, voters need to do the actual vote. Skepticism toward the election process is counterproductive. Instead, activism is imperative not only during the election period but also afterwards. Oversight to government’s public policy and resource allocation is also pertinent. It is important not only to ensure that the elected leaders, whether dynastic or non-dynastic, do their job properly according to good governance principles, but also, more importantly, to provide continuous political education to a public lacking political maturity. Incessant political education will also create new potential leaders, which will constantly challenge the domination of dynastic politicians.

By doing so, potential voters in the future will have more comprehensive reference to select their leaders, particularly from dynastic politicians’ track records. The more they perform well, the stronger public’s positive collective cognition toward their family names. Family name will serve as a brand to those politicians. In the end, the public as customers will always choose the best brand, which has been proven to give them maximum benefit with minimum cost.

There is no instant way to prevent elites from creating political dynasties because democracy, in fact, allows them to do so. Prohibiting a particular person due to one’s background to enter political arena can be interpreted as violation against democratic principles. In this sense, we should return to the basic principle of democracy: free and fair competition in the election. Additionally, citizens’ active participation in the political process as well as continuous commitment to political education remains critical despite the high costs accrued.

***

ASEAN 44th Anniversary: Fostering People-to-People Contact towards a Solid ASEAN Community

This year the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) celebrates its 44^th Anniversary. Forty-four years of living and maintaining peace and stability in one of the most dynamic regions in the world is a remarkable achievement for an association that was built in the midst of the Cold War.

However, as the Cold War came to an end, the forces of globalization and interdependence became something inevitable for most countries around the world, including ASEAN member countries. Therefore, to strengthen its cooperation and cohesion, they have decided to go further beyond its original form. ASEAN wants to make a solid community under the umbrella of the ASEAN Community, which consists of three pillars, namely: the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC), and the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC). The deadline set for the establishment of this new form of cooperation among Southeast Asian countries is 2015.

This article has been published by The Jakarta Post (August 14, 2011)

All three pillars have their own challenges toward 2015. This commentary will be focused on the last pillar, the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community with emphasis on people-to-people interaction in the Southeast Asian region.  

People-to-People Contact: A Vital Factor for the Establishment of the ASEAN Community

The ASCC Blueprint has stated that building an ASEAN Identity is one of the characteristics of ASCC. Thus, the ASCC aims to promote awareness and the common values of ASEAN to its people, as well as to create a sense of belonging, mutual understanding, and togetherness. By doing so, ASEAN hopes that its citizens will give their full support towards the establishment of the ASEAN Community by 2015.

Citizens’ support is a vital precondition needed to establish a solid network and cooperation among ASEAN member countries. Without it, cooperation at the elite level will be “soulless” because their people, which are their ultimate reason to cooperate with each other, will not be aware of the cooperation’s benefits, and even bring pessimism and skepticism towards the cooperation. In short, without its citizens’ support, cooperation among the governments of Southeast Asia will be less effective, if not useless.

One of the many ways through which this support can be obtained is people-to-people contact. People-to-people contact can bring strong support for ASEAN governments to form any kind of positive cooperation among them. Through interactions citizens in ASEAN countries can get to know each other better, build mutual understanding, develop the sense that they are facing common problems, and ultimately seek for common solution to their problems. The latter is where governments play their role by cooperating with each other to create common policies or programs, which can be accepted and implemented by all members of ASEAN, because they are sure that it will bring benefits to its people.

People-to-people interaction does not necessarily mean direct interaction (though it is the most effective way). Indirect interaction through various channels such as the mass media, online community, or through social networking media like Facebook and Twitter can be alternatives to bridge communication among Southeast Asians.

Interaction among ASEAN citizens is still very low. There are indeed so many meetings, policies, and programs already carried out with the aim to increase interaction between ASEAN citizens, some examples include the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Youth (AMMY), the ASEAN Committee on Women, the ASEAN Education Ministers Meeting, ASEAN Foundation’s programs, the ASCC Blueprint, free social visit visa for citizens of ASEAN countries (except in several member countries), and many other forms of cooperation. In essence, Governments of ASEAN countries are trying their best to serve the needs of ASEAN people.

However, most Southeast Asians are still not aware about those meetings, policies, and programs. The reason is that there are not so many and intensive news coverage on ASEAN issues or intensive socialization and dissemination of information carried out the government to the general public.

With only four years left to go until 2015, people-to-people interaction to increase social cohesion among Southeast Asians needs to be accelerated. Otherwise, ASEAN Community 2015 will only be like most ASEAN cooperation in the past. It ended at the elite level and the people are left behind.

Some Suggestions to Increase People-to-People Contact

Some solutions can be suggested to foster people-to-people interaction in the region.

First, considering mass media is one of the most effective channels to disseminate information to broader audiences, the governments of Southeast Asia need to be more focused on efforts to embrace and engage with the mass media in ASEAN countries. Thus, intensive, innovative, and integrated media relations programs need to be developed immediately. Intense engagement of the media could evoke them or the press community to write more about ASEAN.

Second, the governments of Southeast Asia need to increase the number of activities such as youth exchange and youth camp, teacher or lecturer exchange, and other activities that could provide direct interaction among community leaders or opinion makers from ASEAN member countries. Those activities should be evaluated from time to time and networks built among the participants should be maintained.

Third, the governments of Southeast Asia need to provide more support to the non-government and private sector’ efforts which would help to promote people-to-people interaction among ASEAN citizens. If the governments cannot support in terms of funding, they can at least facilitate and provide easy access to their needs to cooperate with partner institutions from other ASEAN member countries. 

Finally, the governments of Southeast Asia need to utilize the power of social media such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Flickr, or other media to generate support from ASEAN people. These social media can be employed and they are powerful tools for people to get to know each other better, exchange ideas, share experience, and seek for common solutions.

Hopefully, by 2015, ASEAN can establish a solid ASEAN Community with the full support of its citizens who share the same idea: “Think, Feel, and Act ASEAN”. Congratulations ASEAN.

Published in Jakarta Post

***