Mythbusting on the road to 2014

The peoples of most countries build myths around themselves. My own country of birth,
Australia, offers many such myths. There is the myth of Australian life as the rural outback,
despite the fact that 90% of Australians live in urban, usually, coastal cities. There is also the
myth of the well-toned sun tanned Aussie despite the fact that a growing proportion of the
population look more like me – pale and obese!!

Presidential myth
Indonesians too have built their own fair share of myths. One of these is that, aside from the
1950s, Indonesia has always followed a presidential system of government.

Looking at how the political engine of the original 1945 Constitution was designed to work we
see that the president was elected and dismissed through a parliamentary process. The fudge
factor, which argues that the National Assembly was somehow not a legislative body, aside the
parliament was the dominant component in that political engine. The foundation of political
legitimacy and accountability as well as political survival of the president was determined not by
the voters, but rather their MPs. This is the essence of any parliamentary system.

The difference between other parliamentary systems and the original 1945 Constitution was that
the parliament determined the fate of both the Head of State and Head of Government at the
same time. In this regard the old Indonesian system should be considered to represent an
extremely radical, and inherrently unstable, form of parliamentary system.

Source of the myth

The myth of Indonesian presidentialism originated from the experiences under the first 2
presidents from the end of the 1950s to the end of the 1990s. These presidents dominated the
political scene by emasculating the body that had the right and responsibility to appoint or
dismiss them, namely the parliament.

President Sukarno did this was abolishing electoral politics and appointing the parliament
himself. Not surprising they were happy to appoint him president soon after.

President Soeharto dominated the parliament by “simplifying” the party system and then
orchestrating the electoral environment to ensure his preferred party could never lose – at least
nationally.

In both cases, the key to success was to exclude the voting public from playing any role in their
political fate by creating a closed loop between themselves and the dependent parliaments they
dominated. The only way to break this loop was through catastrophic meltdowns of the social,
economic and political fabric of society. This occurred in 1965-66 and then in 1997-98.

Looking back it was an absurdly high threshold of national pain to endure merely to say “time is
up”.
What many failed to notice, however, is that once citizens regained sovereign voice the structural
instability of this radical parliamentary system became very apparent. From 1998 to 2001, the
Indonesian parliament appointed and dismissed 4 presidents.

Indonesia’s parliamentary genes

Among the most popular demands during Reformasi was that the power of the president be
pulled back. The newly emboldened parliament was very happy to oblige pruning from the
president and giving to itself.

In essence the new political system provides for a president who has to assume all accountability,
through vigorous oversight by the parliament, but who enjoys limited authority. On the other
hand, the president faces MPs in a parliament who enjoy substantial authority but little actual
constitutional accountability. The president enjoys all the glory as a head of state but little of the
power of a head of government. All up a pretty unappetising combination. Even so there are
applicants for the job.

The ultimate selectors

What will the voters seek in 2014? The first point is that it will be somebody different. President
SBY is not an option as he concludes his second and final term. Indeed this should be the first
hint at what the voters are likely to seek. After 10 years of President SBY, the voters will look
for someone who is very different to him.

We should expect voters to warm to a candidate who does not have the perceived weaknesses of
President SBY. Most notable among perceived weaknesses are indecision, willingness to
compromise to maintain consensus, and a tendency to follow, not lead, public opinion.

The obvious counter position to such a leadership style therefore is someone perceived to be
decisive and aggressively assertive. The use of the term perceived is deliberate and important.
Individual voters do not “know” their national leaders. They rely, therefore, on indirect and
filtered means to decide their views, notably through the media and circumstantial evidence such
as the perceived impact of their leaders’ decisions on their lives.

The electorate will also seek to retain some of the good things they perceive President SBY to
have delivered. Notable among these would be an improvement in the country’s global standing
on corruption. When he took office Indonesia was 11th lowest in the world with a rating of 2. At
the end of 2011, Indonesia for the first time has achieved a rating of 3. It now stands above
almost half the countries of the world and is level with Mexico and Argentina.

Indonesia’s steady emergence into international commercial respectability will also be seen as a
plus during this era. Fading glories such as bringing peace to Aceh will also retain positive
consideration in certain areas of the electorate, as well as the fact that Indonesia remains the
region’s leading democracy.

However, the subconscious of the electorate is likely to see many of these achievements as
“factored into” the Indonesian system. This means they will perceive these as problems solved,
while the weaknesses are likely to be perceived as problems to be solved.
Beyond these issues there are also other problems that can be elevated as useful platforms for a
serious candidate. This includes issues of poverty such as various long standing problems of
institutional poverty in the rural areas as well as the economic exclusion and discrimination faced
by the migrant poor in the cities.

The candidates
There are currently 2 serious candidates for president in 2014. The first is Lt Jen (ret) Prabowo
Subianto and the second is Ir Aburizal Bakrie. Both are long term figures in the public domain.
Both lead their own political parties. Both were failed candidates for Golkar’s historic
presidential congress in 2004. In other ways they are very different.

Prabowo Subianto has in many ways energized the political process particularly since his
performance as Megawati’s running mate in 2009. He was a solid and exciting candidate on the
hustings. This performance followed significant pre-election investment work, notably through
his gaining chairmanship of the national farmers’ union, HKTI in 2005, as well as establishing
his party, Gerindra.

While in many respects an offshoot of Golkar, Gerindra has positioned itself somewhat to the left
of Golkar both in terms of appealing to poorer constituents as well as promoting a more muscular
and secular nationalism. Prabowo has built, a solid working relationship with Megawati, critical
for ensuring he can pass whatever parliamentary threshold is required for presidential eligibility
in 2014. His re-election to head the HKTI offers another legitimate platform from which to
advocate publicly the interests of the rural poor.

His aggressive and direct style will appeal well to the younger generation, notably first time
voters, many of whom were in diapers when his former father-in-law and Indonesia’s last
strongman, Soeharto, was forced to resign. As with any figure with a long record in public life,
he has his baggage. While his old links to the former President are likely to be a fading issue of
public interest, his military record will not be.

His well earned reputation as a general’s general, will emerge as an issue notably on matters of
human rights and potential fears of him seeking to become dictatorial in style. On the first issue
he can be expected to successfully take advantage of any international whispers of concern by
enveloping himself in nationalist rhetoric; confident that no country would take sanction against
a democratically elected leader of the world 3 rd biggest democracy. On the second issue, we
should expect strong affirmation that Indonesia’s democracy is surely robust enough to suggest
no need to fear the ghosts of military dictatorship.

Aburizal Bakrie’s rise to political prominance has been much less populist in style. While
Prabowo Subianto projects in a very presidential manner, the Bakrie style is much more Prime
Ministerial. He presents as a man who can be relied upon to cut the deals needed to get the job
done. Unlike Paobowo who has built support through chairing the farmers’ union, Bakrie has
built his networks through the National Camber of Commerce and Industry, Kadin, chairing the
organisation from 1994 to 2004. His initial victory, defeating the candidate supported clearly by
then President Soeharto, demonstrated commendable political aptitude and fortitude. Few indeed
were those who dared to confront and defeat Soeharto’s preferred candidates back then.

His biggest baggage relates to his own private sector domain. He is clearly credited with building
one of the country’s lagest corporate conglomerates. However, Bakrie branded businesses come
in too frequently for credit crunches or bruising scandals such as the Lapindo mud mess in East
Java. This means Bakrie will need to deal carefully with these issues lest his campaign become
bogged down in its own muddy morass.

More fundamentally he will have to convince sceptical Indonesians he understands that a conflict
of interest is not a convergence of interest; and then acts accordingly to separate his business
from political interests.

He will also need to build a public image that is appealing to regular voters on the campaign
hustings, not just to the business barons of the boardrooms.

Here the presidential political system works to Prabowo’s natural political advantage as an
energetic public performer. One way for Bakrie to counteract his dull public pesona will be
through a populist personal approach through networks of charity or economic support. One
development to expect in 2012 is a major Bakrie charm offensive through philanthropy focused,
not surprisingly, on rural folk in need of loans, grants or other support.

Overall he would be less well placed at this stage than Prabowo. To demonstrate that he is
candidate with the ability to win 50% of voter support, Bakrie needs to expand his base support
vote considerably. 2012 will be his make or break year.

Is that all?
Heading into 2012, many groups and commentators are looking for “something new”. Afterall
both lead candidates have been around since well before the Reformasi era. Where are the new
leaders?

Some are looking for an inspiring candidate among provincial governors. Sadly the
overcentralized nature of Indonesia’s party system has restricted the rise of non-Jakarta insiders
to the top eschelons of politics. One further restriction brought about by the overcentralized party
system is a difficulty for younger leaders to break into the top levels of major party leadership.
While the election of Anas Urbaningrum to the Chairmanship of Demokrat may represent the
shape of things to come, until 2014 the political party glass ceiling for the next generation of
leaders will remain closed.

One potential third presidential candidate scenario could be a pairing of an elder statesman
willing to serve only one term while allowing his or her vice-presidential running mate to grow
into a leadership position. Intriguing here is a quiet nostalgia for former vice-president Kalla. He
is perceived to embody the decisiveness, willingness to take tough decisions and speak bluntly
that are likely to represent core characteristics the electorate now seeks.
For many of the urban intelligensia and activists there is a dream team scenario with former
Finance Minister Dr Sri Mulyani as presidential candidate. The flaw in this scenario is that to
lead Indonesia you have to be here, working now, not 5 weeks before the election. You also have
to really want the job. That Dr Sri Mulyani remains fully occupied with the World Bank at this
time suggests she is not a serious presidential candidate. Unless she soon relocates to focus on
this presidential job, her supporters can keep dreaming.

A reality check
On the notion of campaigning, it is time Indonesia’s arcane and outdated and frankly silly
legalistic definition of campaigning be discarded. In its place should be the simple acceptance of
the reality that every time a politician opens or does not open their mouth, every position they
endorse or reject, every visit they make or event sponsored represents a statement about who
they are or what they want. Get real! The campaign for 2014 is now underway. The people are
watching and more importantly judging. This is the essence of campaigning.

One of the most interesting aspects of the current frontruners is that none is really a Javanese. Mr
Bakrie hails from Lampung as does Dr Sri Mulyani. Mr Kalla is from South Sulawesi, while Lt
Gen (ret) Prabowo is only part Javanese, as his mother hails from North Sulawesi.

The victory of any of the above might finally put an end to another Indonesian myth. This is the
myth that only Javanese can be President.