CIVICUS speaks with Rizky Argama, Executive Director, and Violla Reininda, Programme Manager at the Centre of Indonesian Law and Policy Studies (PSHK), about the results of Indonesia’s 14 February presidential election – the world’s biggest single-day election, in which over 200 million people were eligible to vote.
Founded in 1998, the PSHK is a research and advocacy institution focusing on legal reform.
Was the 14 February election free and fair?
It is difficult to say the election was free and fair. Long before election day, indications of a very unequal competition emerged at various levels.
The biggest irregularity was the Constitutional Court’s decision to allow presidential and vice-presidential candidates under 40 years of age to run as long as they have experience as regional heads, a requirement tailor-made to pave the way for outgoing President Joko Widodo’s eldest son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, current mayor of Surakarta, to become a vice-presidential candidate alongside Prabowo Subianto, a former opponent of Jokowi, as the president is called, and now his defence minister. The decision was highly problematic ethically and legally, partly because the chief justice of the Constitutional Court, Jokowi’s brother-in-law, had a conflict of interest in examining and deciding on the case.
The government also created three new provinces in Papua, where Jokowi and his endorsed presidential candidate receive much support, for political advantage. Jokowi also took advantage of vacancies of regional heads – governors, regents and mayors – to appoint trusted figures as acting regional heads to secure an electoral process that would tilt in his favour.
Unfair practices also marred the campaign, including Gibran’s endorsement by his father, leading to the use of state funds for his campaign, including for social assistance given to constituents as gifts. Ministers also campaigned openly, breaching expectations of neutrality.
Several mass media outlets reported biased attitudes from civil servants, both at the central and regional government levels. Officials showed favouritism towards Prabowo, referring to him constantly as Jokowi’s successor, as if the election was a done deal.
Although the Election Law requires government officials to take leave when campaigning, ministers and regional heads blatantly campaigned while carrying out their duties, which they took advantage of for electoral gain. For example, the minister of trade distributed basic necessities such as oil and rice to people he visited, claiming the aid came from Jokowi and urging them to vote for a candidate who would continue his programmes.
Shortly before election day, Jokowi and his ministers paid numerous visits to the regions and provided social assistance packages in the form of cash or food items such as rice. Sometimes he provided social assistance to people in locations close to campaign areas visited by other candidates, particularly Ganjar Pranowo. Tempo mass media reported that Jokowi asked his minister of finance to continue increasing the budget allocation for social assistance until election day, including by reallocating funds from other ministries and government agencies.
Such covert campaigning actions are punishable under the Election Law, but the Election Supervisory Board, which has the authority to investigate such violations, did not take much action.
Academics from notable universities who spoke up about the need for Jokowi to act as a political leader above the dispute faced criticism from his cabinet members, who accused them of representing foreign interests. They received threats and some had their social media accounts or phones hacked. This created unfavourable conditions for activists and civil society to voice criticism.
The documentary film Dirty Vote, directed by investigative journalist Dandhy Laksono, outlined the tactics used to manufacture a comfortable win for the Prabowo-Gibran pair. Featuring three highly respected independent legal experts, the film was launched on YouTube three days before the election and immediately gained the attention of more than 13 million viewers. It provided insight into how Prabowo would amass almost 60 per cent of the vote.
What were the main campaign issues, and what were Prabowo’s promises?
There were hardly any structured ideas coming from the Prabowo-Gibran campaign. Whether in debates or campaign events, they basically just focused on the need to boost nutrition with free school lunches and milk for kids. In the official debates organised by the Election Commission, candidates were more focused on getting a rise out of their opponents than putting forward original ideas. They even tried to trip up other candidates by using technical terms or uncommon abbreviations.
They also tried to present themselves as the successors of Jokowi and sold the idea of a new, modern capital city – over two hours by plane from the current capital, Jakarta – that would kickstart development of Kalimantan Island, known for being underdeveloped but rich in natural resources, particularly minerals and coal.
These were all very expensive promises. Prabowo was criticised for not explaining where the funding would come from. There were also doubts about his understanding of corruption, which he seemed to think was solely the result of financial struggle. His solution was therefore to promise to increase the salaries of state officials and law enforcement officers without addressing the root causes of the problem. Notably, he never mentioned the need to strengthen the Corruption Eradication Commission or human rights protections, drawing significant criticism.
Why did Prabowo win?
The Prabowo campaign made very effective use of social media, particularly TikTok. The image crafted by the Prabowo-Gibran duo caught the attention of young voters, who make up the majority of the electorate. This year, around 54 per cent of voters were from generations Y and Z. Prabowo, a retired general suspected of serious human rights violations, played up a cute grandpa image, doing dances at every campaign stop. The lack of historical awareness among younger voters greatly helped him. Meanwhile, Gibran showed off his youthfulness by being cool but dispassionate in front of journalists and on social media.
Additionally, Prabowo and Gibran are part of an anti-intellectual movement that’s gaining momentum. Many people disregard academics and scientists and prefer leaders who are perceived as doing less talking and taking more tangible action. There is a perception that intellectuals only engage in abstract talk without substantial action, and voters favour leaders who are seen as more action oriented. This sentiment was reinforced by the candidates’ performance in the presidential and vice-presidential debates.
Prabowo’s campaign style was similar to that of Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr in the Philippines. He used the exact same recipe. There were even reports suggesting he had hired the same political consultant who advised Bongbong, although there’s no evidence for this claim.
But the main factor behind Prabowo’s victory was the full support of Jokowi. Although Jokowi never explicitly stated his support for Prabowo, all his actions and policies revealed he was the force behind him. Jokowi’s support included efforts to engineer court decisions by appointing his brother-in-law as the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, mobilising regional leaders for the campaign and channelling state funds for social assistance in the run-up to the election.
What were civil society’s reactions to the election results?
Prabowo is hardly a new face: he has been running for president since 2009, and civil society and human rights activists have consistently called on voters not to vote for perpetrators of human rights violations.
Before the election, a civil society coalition formed to supervise the vote and gathered reports of irregularities from the public during the voting and counting processes. The collected data is being processed for reporting.
The Election Commission will only announce the election’s final results in mid-March, and even then there will be legal proceedings to dispute them in the Constitutional Court. However, results are unlikely to change significantly, and Prabowo will solidify his victory before mid-year.
The outcome of this year’s election was particularly predictable due to the strong interference and support of the current government to perpetuate its authority through Prabowo and Gibran.
Civil society needs to anticipate the possibility of new laws or regulations that further restrict civic space, and must remain vigilant against the potential use of defamation laws against people or organisations critical of the authorities.
Do you have concerns about the future of democracy and human rights in Indonesia?
Democratic decline has been evident over the past five years under the Jokowi administration, and Prabowo’s victory is unlikely to improve the situation. It may worsen it. Prabowo has displayed unfriendly attitudes towards journalists on several occasions, raising concerns about press freedom. Freedom of expression is also at risk, as members of Prabowo’s campaign team have a history of using draconian laws to silence government critics.
Freedoms of association and peaceful assembly are under threat. The Jokowi administration has opened the door to the dissolution of civil society organisations without due process, and several organisations deemed to oppose the government have been disbanded. The situation is unlikely to improve under Prabowo.
Prabowo’s victory represents the worst-case scenario for the future of human rights in Indonesia. Not only does he lack perspective and commitment to human rights, but he was also involved in the abduction of activists in 1998 when he was the commander of Indonesia’s special military forces. The longstanding efforts of Indonesian civil society to push for the resolution of various cases of serious human rights violations will be further from materialising when Prabowo leads the country.
Moreover, Prabowo also lacks a clear track record or vision on the protection of excluded groups, including women and gender minorities. During official debates, when discussing women’s rights, Prabowo said that the key to empowering women was to provide nutrition for pregnant women. Such a response demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the complexities of the rights violations faced by women, including violence and lack of opportunities in education and political participation.
Last but not least, Prabowo and Gibran seem more focused on economic development and their own businesses than democracy. This is just not a priority for them. In a recent discussion on shrinking civic space in Indonesia, Prabowo’s spokesperson said there were no issues with Indonesia’s democracy, which caused significant backlash. He basically chooses to disregard everything wrong with our democracy.
Civic space in Indonesia is rated ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with the PSHK through its website or Facebook page, and follow it on Twitter and Instagram.
