Menanti Gebrakan Bidenomics
Pada 10 November, A. Prasetyantoko menulis tentang Terpilihnya Biden sebagai presiden ke-46 AS dan konstelasi global. Selengkapnya dapat dibaca di https://kompas.id/baca/opini/2020/11/10/menanti-gebrakan-bidenomics/ atau, dapat dilihat dibawah ini.
Mendobrak Kelambanan Birokrasi
Menyikapi polemik hebat soal Rancangan Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja yang sudah disahkan DPR pada 5 Oktober lalu. Ekonom sekaligus Rektor Unika Atma Jaya Dr. A. Prasetyantoko mengatakan ada dua hal yang menjadi fokus perdebatan, yaitu soal proses penyusunan dan substansinya. Dari sisi proses, kritik tertuju pada dinamika yang dianggap tertutup dan terlalu cepat untuk sebuah kerangka perundangan yang sedemikian luas dan kompleks. Sementara, dari sisi substansi, ada beberapa titik perdebatan seperti perlindungan pekerja dan lingkungan yang berkurang, serta kembalinya otoritas kebijakan pada pemerintah pusat (resentralisasi). Selain dua hal tersebut, Dr. A. Prasetyantoko juga mengungkapkan bahwa polemik tersebut menjurus pada urgensinya. “Jika tujuannya meningkatkan investasi, masalah korupsi lebih krusial dibereskan daripada meluncurkan RUU Cipta Kerja. Selain itu, Indonesia merupakan salah satu negara destinasi utama investasi asing selama ini. Kita sama sekali tak kekurangan investasi, mengapa perlu upaya ekstra meningkatkannya? Begitu berbagai gugatan mengalir deras pada urgensi UU Cipta Kerja ini,” jelasnya. Ia menambahkan, mungkin saja perdebatan selanjutnya adalah mengapa perlu perubahan peraturan sebanyak itu sehingga muncul berbagai pasal yang cenderung merugikan berbagai pihak. Ini dilema lain yang juga harus dijawab secara nyata. Sebagaimana dijelaskan dalam Pasal 1 dan 3, tujuan RUU Cipta Kerja adalah menciptakan lapangan kerja (pertama-tama) melalui pemberdayaan koperasi dan unit usaha mikro, kecil, dan menengah. Tentu ada banyak pasal terkait investasi strategis yang nilainya besar dan melibatkan investor (asing) besar pula. Meski begitu, anggapan RUU Cipta Kerja hanya berorientasi mendatangkan investasi (asing) berskala besar tak sepenuhnya valid. Relaksasi dan transformasi Harus diakui, semangat UU Cipta Kerja adalah melakukan relaksasi di berbagai bidang secara komprehensif dan cepat. Keyakinan umum di mana-mana tentang cara paling cepat meningkatkan produktivitas dan daya saing adalah melalui relaksasi atau liberalisasi. Dengan relaksasi diyakini akan menarik lebih banyak investasi sehingga lebih banyak kesempatan kerja tercipta. Para pendukung RUU Cipta Kerja menyakini, jika proteksi pada pekerja menurun, proteksi terhadap pekerjaan itu meningkat. Tentu saja dari kaca mata pekerja, argumen ini ganjil. Sebab, mereka yang harus menanggung efek negatifnya. Bisa dipahami jika para pekerja tak rela kualitas hidupnya menurun, meskipun demi kesempatan kerja yang lebih luas (bagi orang lain) di masa depan. Oleh karena itu, perlu kompromi atas dilema seperti ini. Namun, tampaknya ada banyak dilema lain di berbagai aspek dalam aturan seluas ini. Dr. A. Prasetyantoko menjelaskan ada dua cara untuk keluar dari aneka dilema ini. Pertama, perlu pemetaan komprehensif dengan mengundang partisipasi berbagai pihak guna merumuskan aturan turunan yang optimal. Kedua, perlu akselerasi kerja birokrasi agar lebih responsif, baik dalam menampung masukan maupun merancang kebijakan lanjutannya. “Kalaupun RUU Cipta Kerja ini bisa begitu saja disahkan, tanpa penolakan dan proses hukum di Mahkamah Konstitusi, tak serta-merta persoalannya selesai. Persoalannya justru baru dimulai karena kuncinya ada di fase implementasi. Berbagai upaya relaksasi hanya akan relevan jika peta jalan transformasinya dijabarkan,” kata Rektor Unika Atma Jaya tersebut. Lebih lanjut, Dr. A. Prasetyantoko menjelaskan soal pengurusan izin investasi satu pintu melalui perizinan terintegrasi secara elektronik (Online Single Submission/OSS), misalnya. Meskipun sudah diatur dalam Peraturan Pemerintah No 24/2018, dalam implementasinya masih banyak kendala sehingga hasilnya belum maksimal. “Mekanisme yang diharapkan meningkatkan minat berinvestasi di Indonesia ini tak serta-merta membuahkan hasil. Tentu saja, investasi tak sekadar dipengaruhi kemudahan administrasif, tetapi juga faktor fundamental lainnya. Namun, fakta ini perlu menjadi pelajaran, agar omnibus law tak bernasib serupa; relaksasi tak diikuti transformasi,” katanya. Terlepas masih banyaknya pasal yang konsensusnya belum tercapai, ada (lebih) banyak pasal lain yang valid segera ditindaklanjuti. Sebagai contoh, relaksasi pendirian koperasi primer yang hanya memerlukan 9 orang dari ketentuan sebelumya 20 orang. Juga relaksasi perizinan pendirian Perseroan Terbatas (PT) serta Usaha Mikro Kecil (UMK) yang praktis tak memerlukan izin, cukup dengan pemberitahuan. RUU Cipta Kerja cukup rinci mengatur penguatan UMK, mulai dari penyatuan data, insentif fiskal hingga kewajiban pendampingan oleh pemerintah dan dunia usaha. Dr. A. Prasetyantoko mengatakan, berbagai pasal peningkatan kapasitas dan pemberdayaan UMK merupakan salah satu bagian pokok dari UU Cipta Kerja dalam rangka melakukan transformasi ekonomi. Oleh karena itu, kalaupun masih banyak pasal yang dianggap kontroversial, sepertinya tak perlu membatalkan seluruh konstruksi hukumnya. Meski upaya hukum masih terbuka lebar, diperlukan konsensus agar transformasi ekonomi melalui peningkatan produktivitas dan daya saing tetap bisa diakselerasi. Di lain hal, Dr. A. Prasetyantoko juga mengatakan bawa perlu konsistensi agar RUU Cipta Kerja tak bias kepentingan investor besar. “Diperlukan langkah nyata mewujudkan transformasi ekonomi domestik melalui pemberdayaan UKM. Relaksasi harus ditindaklanjuti dengan upaya transformasi yang terarah. Jika tidak, hanya akan menjadi liberalisasi yang menguntungkan pelaku besar saja. Jika hal itu terjadi, keberatan utama berbagai pihak selama ini menemukan kebenarannya,” ungkapnya. Ia berharap agar jangan sampai kinerja birokrasi justru menggerogoti legitimasi kerangka perundangan yang secara normatif sulit dibantah lebih banyak pihak di negeri ini.
Pandemi Covid-19 dan Siklus Ekonomi
Pada 17 Maret, A. Prasetyantoko menulis tentang Pandemi Covid-19 yang sedang terjadi dan dampaknya terhadap siklus ekonomi. Selengkapnya dapat dibaca di https://kompas.id/baca/opini/2020/03/17/pandemi-dan-siklus-ekonomi/ atau, dapat dilihat dibawah ini.
Director of AJIPP Talked about What to Expect After Election
What to expect after the election Edbert Gani Suryahudaya Jakarta Looking at the quick and real counts that are still progressing, the composition of legislative seats for the next five years is becoming clear. There will be no new party working in Senayan. The Hanura Party is the only party within the government coalition that is unlikely to get any seats. The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) will keep its power as the biggest party, while NasDem will enjoy a significant increase of votes. However, the political dynamics in the legislature will be much different compared to 2014. When elected in 2014, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo did not have a majority in the House of Representatives. It took him over a year to reconfigure the balance of power among political parties and gather support to confidently start making policy decisions. Jokowi will most likely have a stronger grip on the House from the very start of his second term, thanks to his success in moving certain pivotal points among political actors beforehand. His coalition is likely to exceed 50 percent of the vote in the legislative election. The Legislative Institutions Law (MD3 Law) combined with the soon to be announced election result will provide his group large control over the seats of legislative speakers. With such strong support in the House, Jokowi has all the power he needs to further a progressive policy agenda. In consolidating his power, Golkar’s political maneuvers over the past three years have been particularly significant to Jokowi’s strategy. After having won the second largest share of votes in the 2014 election (14.75 percent) for the then-Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Rajasa ticket, Golkar transitioned into becoming a pivotal player for Jokowi’s coalition. While giving Jokowi additional power in the Cabinet, Golkar was also valuable in driving support for Jokowi in the 2019 election by leveraging its vast political network and campaign machine. Following several corruption cases involving party leaders such as Setya Novanto and Idrus Marham, Golkar was surprisingly able to maintain its position as one of the top three parties. Although there may be several different explanations for that, being in the government coalition is likely to be one of the more dominant factors. Jokowi and Airlangga Hartarto, the new Golkar chairman and industry minister, were often seen making public appearances together. Their closeness can be seen to have benefited both sides. Generally speaking, political support for Prabowo in 2014 that came from Golkar’s base has shifted to Jokowi, thus helping Jokowi’s national campaign team to cater to that portion of the electorate. This shows us that partnering with a player such as Golkar has been instrumental to the success of the 2019 election – Jokowi was able to leverage that partnership to attain his second term. So what can we expect from the other parties if we expect neither Jokowi nor Prabowo to run in the next election? The PDI-P has shown us before that some success can be achieved by being part of the opposition for two straight terms. After having been in the opposition and achieving only the third largest share of votes in 2009, it followed up by winning the next two elections in a row. On the other hand, the Democratic Party, the biggest winner of the 2009 election and led by ex-president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, experienced a considerable fall in its share of votes in 2014. This is often thought to have been caused by the rampant corruption during the end of the Yudhoyono government. The Democrats eventually chose to abstain from Jokowi’s coalition in 2014, leading to an even smaller share of votes in the 2019 election. These two past examples should alert other parties to strategically choose their side, especially for those outside of Jokowi’s coalition. Whatever happens in the House, the demand of distribution of power in Jokowi’s next cabinet might become more contentious. Following the unexpectedly positive results from Golkar and NasDem, they would likely demand a larger allocation of strategic Cabinet positions. Additionally, the National Awakening Party (PKB) and United Development Party (PPP) are likely to demand the same thing, claiming the credit for Muslim votes. aThus President Jokowi has two main options open. With a strong hold on the House, this is his chance to concentrate fully on the policy agendas with the help of a Cabinet full of technocratic ministers. On the other hand, he also has the opportunity to consolidate his power by currying favor with the different political parties vying for strategic positions in his Cabinet. Unlike his first term in 2014, Jokowi no longer needs to take the latter option. There is much progress to be done if he prioritizes his policy agenda. Indonesians have much to gain if he does not get lured into playing a Game of Thrones. The writer, a graduate of the London School of Economics and Political Science, is the director of the Atma Jaya Institute of Public Policy. The views expressed are his own. This article was published on The Jakarta Post Newspaper, 16th of May 2019. The online version can be accessed here: https://www.thejakartapost.com/academia/2019/05/16/what-to-expect-after-the-polls.html
AJIPP`s research fellow commented on the post election`s result announcement`s demonstration
24/5/2019 Protesters clash with police after Indonesian president’s reelection, leaving 6 dead JAKARTA, Indonesia — Six people were reported killed and hundreds injured Wednesday in violent protests over the reelection of President Joko Widodo, prompting authorities to restrict access to social media. Jakarta’s governor, Anies Baswedan, said he received information that six people died in the clashes, which were orchestrated by supporters of the losing candidate in April’s election, Prabowo Subianto, after the official results were announced. Indonesian police acknowledged fatalities and said they heard hospital reports of the six deaths, but they declined to confirm that number. Police said they were not responsible for the deaths. “There’s no way the state apparatus would kill the perpetrators,” said Indonesia’s security minister, Wiranto. Authorities said police were forbidden to use live ammunition against demonstrators. Police, however, used tear gas in central Jakarta amid scuffles between protesters and security forces. On Wednesday afternoon, Indonesia’s communication minister, Rudiantara, said access to social media would be restricted with immediate effect. The move made Indonesia the latest country to curb social media platforms after chaos and violence. “The limitations will be placed on the spreading of download and uploads photos and videos,” Rudiantara said. “Again, it’s temporary and in stages.” The restrictions appeared to apply primarily to the sharing of videos and photos over social media platforms such as Instagram and WhatsApp. Widodo, who was reelected president, said his country “will not tolerate anyone who interferes with our security and democratic processes.” The situation, he added, was under control. Thousands of protesters started had begun gathering in central Jakarta after an official vote count showed Widodo had won more than 55 percent of 154 million votes cast in the April election. This was his second win over Prabowo, a retired army lieutenant general who lost the presidential election to Widodo five years ago. With early results predicting a clear win for Widodo, his challenger alleged foul play in the voting despite a widespread consensus that the election had been largely well-run. On Tuesday, Prabowo continued to challenge the vote and vowed to take his case to the Constitutional Court. His supporters gathered Tuesday morning near the election supervisory agency in central Jakarta, where tensions have been running high since the election. Muslims are marking the holy month of Ramadan. After breaking their fast and attending evening prayers, more demonstrators appeared. Police said these protesters were violent, unlike earlier ones, and broke through security barriers protecting the election agency, throwing rocks and torching cars. Some threw molotov cocktails at a police dormitory, authorities said. Videos from Tuesday evening showed rioters throwing fireworks and pelting police with rocks. Police responded with tear gas and water cannons. “They were very brutal,” said Muhammad Iqbal, a spokesman for the Indonesian police. The protests were “by design,” he said, and “not spontaneous.” Local media reported hundreds of injuries and several fatalities, but Iqbal said police had yet to confirm a death toll. More than 40,000 police and army personnel were on duty to keep order in the city. Dedi Prasetyo, another spokesman for the national police, said more than 62 protesters were arrested. Among them were three people carrying guns on Tuesday who admitted they planned to use the firearms in demonstrations the next day, he said. Police also said rioters had smuggled rocks and fireworks into central Jakarta via ambulance overnight. Some demonstrators were caught with envelopes stuffed with cash, presumably to pay others to join them, police said. Authorities have characterized the demonstrations as orchestrated. The protests were organized by hard-line Islamic groups that have called for Prabowo’s supporters to come out in force to show their dissatisfaction with the results. The retired general had stoked nationalist and religious sentiment ahead of the vote, portraying himself as the only person capable of defending Islam in the majority-Muslim country. In recent days, police have arrested three pro-Prabowo activists on suspicions of treason, the Associated Press reported. Among them was a retired general and former commander of Indonesia’s special forces. Speaking Wednesday at a news conference — at the same time as the president — Prabowo seemed to imply that it was the police who had started the chaos. “We plead with the [state apparatus] not to hurt the people’s hearts, especially not to hit and shoot them,” he said. “If this happens again, we’re very worried that the tapestry of our nation will be broken and hard to fix.” Still, Widodo’s win and the smoothly run election mark the solidifying of democracy in Indonesia since the end of dictator Suharto’s rule in 1998. Indonesia and majority-Muslim Malaysia have both bucked regional trends, their democracies growing more resilient and entrenched as other countries in Southeast Asia slip further into authoritarian rule. “The reelection of Jokowi is worth applauding simply because it came via an electoral process untainted by executive interference,” said Lee Morgenbesser, an expert in Southeast Asian politics at Griffith University in Australia, using the president’s nickname. Morgenbesser, who studies elections under authoritarianism, noted that elections in countries including Cambodia and Thailand in recent years suffered from “severe problems of manipulation and misconduct.” “Given the long history of fraudulent elections in Southeast Asia, it is worth celebrating the rare moments when the will of the people is actually translated into a free and fair result,” he added. Widodo, a soft-spoken former furniture salesman, promised in a victory speech Tuesday to be a protector to all Indonesians. He swept the vote in areas with large religious minority populations, notably the island of Bali and the Christian-heavy region of Papua. In his campaign, he emphasized infrastructure development and anti-poverty projects. Widodo’s victory five years ago generated no mass protests in Jakarta.This week’s demonstrations reflect the increasing confidence of hard-line groups after a string of victories, said Yoes C. Kenawas, a research fellow at Atma Jaya University’s Institute of Public Policy. Those wins have included the removal of a popular Jakarta governor, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, in 2017 over a religious misstep.
Berebut Generasi Digital
Oleh : Edbert Gani Alumnus The London School of Economics and Political Science, Inggris Direktur Atma Jaya Institute of Public Policy Salah satu daya tarik utama Pemilihan Umum 2019 ada di sekitar 85 juta pemilih muda, atau kurang lebih 45 persen dari total pemilik hak suara. Kami yang berada dalam rentang usia 18-36 tahun sering disebut sebagai pemilih milenial. Tak pelak, kata “milenial” mengalami inflasi dalam diskusi politik hari-hari ini. Karakteristik yang sering disematkan kepada kelompok ini antara lain adaptif dengan teknologi, melek digital, menyukai budaya pop, individualistis, dan narsisistik. Sayangnya, ciri khas ini masih disikapi para aktor politik sebagai kemasan semata, bukan substansi untuk mengirimkan pesan-pesan melalui kampanye. Alih-alih mencoba meraup dukungan generasi ini, mereka justru antipati terhadap kelompok pemilih tersebut. Maka tak aneh jika selisih elektabilitas pasangan calon presiden-wakil presiden, Joko Widodo-Ma‘ruf Amin dan Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga Uno, justru stagnan tiga bulan menjelang hari pemilihan. Meskipun stagnasi terjadi di hampir semua kelompok usia, kelompok milenial terlihat makin apatis. Penyebabnya, antara lain, polarisasi politik yang kian tajam di antara kedua kubu dan kejenuhan atas perdebatan politik yang minim kualitas. Survei Indikator Politik Indonesia memperlihatkan lebih dari 60 persen publik mengaku kurang tertarik atau tidak tertarik sama sekali pada masalah politik. Sebuah angka yang cukup mencengangkan apabila kita percaya bahwa media sosial sesungguhnya berpotensi menjadi sarana komunikasi politik yang efektif dan sebagian besar pemilih punya akun media sosial. Kedua poros politik saat ini perlu menyikapi secara serius persoalan tersebut apabila mereka tidak ingin angka pemilih yang tak memilih alias golput, terutama di kalangan muda, meningkat. Setidaknya ada dua hal yang perlu kita evaluasi bersama untuk menggairahkan kembali politik pemilihan, yaitu dari segi perspektif yang digunakan dalam melihat kelompok milenial serta strategi kampanye digital. Sebagian besar pemilih milenial yang akan mencoblos pada 17 April 2019 telah mencicipi pemilihan sebelumnya, baik di level daerah maupun di tingkat nasional. Sebagian kecil kelompok ini adalah pemilih pemula, yakni hanya 5 juta atau 6 persen. Maka pemilih milenial, yang umumnya kelompok terdidik, sudah memiliki kapasitas untuk mengevaluasi setiap calon berdasarkan pengalaman. Tim kedua calon mesti memikirkan tema kampanye yang bisa menggaet mereka agar bersedia datang ke bilik suara. Fakta membuktikan, generasi milenial adalah aktor ekonomi di berbagai industri. Agaknya unsur ini masih diabaikan tim kedua kandidat karena tema-tema kampanye masih berputar di sekitar kemasan, bukan program. Mereka bahkan cenderung menganggap pemilih muda sebagi aktor politik yang tak tahu apa-apa. Ironisnya, politikus muda yang terjun ke dunia politik praktis malah terbawa arus politikus tua, yang sangat kurang menyajikan konten politik mencerdaskan. Tak ada, misalnya, kampanye substantif tentang kebutuhkan riil pemilih muda seperti ketersediaan lapangan pekerjaan, ekosistem bisnis, dan ruang terbuka bagi akses wawasan serta kreativitas. Padahal tak sedikit pemilih milenial adalah keluarga muda yang membutuhkan kepastian masa depan yang ditentukan oleh keputusan politik. Mereka bukan lagi penonton, melainkan kelas ekonomi utama yang akan menopang bonus demografi. Optimisme ekonomi ke depan sangat penting bagi pemilih dari kelompok ini ketimbang klarifikasi berbagai sensasi politik. Selain itu, kita dan para kator politik tanpa sadar terlalu memaksakan karakteristik milenial kelas menengah perkotaan (urban middle-class millennials) sebagai cerminan pemilih muda secara keseluruhan. Lebih dari itu, perkotaan dalam paradigman mereka yang tecermin dalam diskusi publik mengacu pada satu-dua kota besar saja. Kebutuhan kelompok milenial perkotaan berbeda dengan di perdesaan. Bahkan, meskipun sama-sama tinggal di perkotaan dan memakai smartphone, kaum milenial Jakarta memiliki kebutuhan yang jauh berbeda dibanding mereka yang ada di kota-kota di Sumatera, Kalimantan, atau Papua. Karena itu, sensitivitas pada isu-isu daerah tetap perlu untuk meraih suara kalangan milenial secara nasional. Lebih dalam lagi, keyakinan tim calon presiden yang mengerahkan pendengung (buzzer) di media sosial untuk mempengaruhi preferensi penghuninya perlu dipertanyakan. Apakah generasi milenial yang memakai Twitter, misalnya, akan terpengaruh oleh keriuhan percakapan yang mendominasi trending topic? Pengamatan saya di platform ini justru menemukan ketidaksinambungan sebuah topik populer dengan pengetahuan publik akan isu tersebut di lapangan secara umum. Sebut saja pelaku Twitter “asyik sendiri”. Keasyikan sendiri itu menular ke pembahasan di televisi. Para aktof politik dan redaksi menganalisis percakapan Twitter tentang tim mana yang menguasi tanda pagar tertentu. Padahal, berkaca pada besaran penggunanya, Twitter adalah platform minoritas dari sekian banyak media sosial yang populer di Indonesia. Hasil survei Indikator Politik Indonesia yang dirilis pada 8 Januari 2019 menunjukkan hanya 2 persen dari populasi pengguna Internet yang setiap hari atau hampir setiap hari membuka Twitter. Bahkan 89 persen responden mengaku tidak pernah memakainya. Dari data di atas terlihat bahwa meletakkan Twitter sebagai representasi percakapan digital masyarakat kita menjadi tidak relevan. Ini belum memasukkan unsur pengurangan jumlah user yang merupakan bot atau akun palsu. Terlebih apabila kita masih bergantung pada alat atau mesin deteksi yang dibeli dari perusahaan-perusahaan penyedia analisis media sosial dari negara lain yang memiliki bias tinggi terhadap bahasa percakapan dan minim pemahaman konteks politik nasional. Kepala tim digital Donald Trump pada pemilihan umum Amerika Serikat 2016, Brad Parscale, dalam sebuah wawancara di televisi mengungkapkan bahwa strategi yang ia pakai untuk menggaet pemilih di Internet adalah berfokus pada kelompok silent majority. Kelompok ini adalah pemakai media sosial yang tidak suka berdebat tentang sebuah topik atau tidak aktif memberikan komentar, tapi mereka menyimak isu-isu politik secara saksama. Kubu Demokrat Amerka pada waktu itu terkecoh dengan terlalu asyik meladeni cuitan provokatif Donald Trump sehingga luput memantau kebutuhan swing voter yang berada di Favebook dengan lebih dari 200 juta pengguna aktif per bulan – satu tingkat lebih banyak dari pemakai Facebook Indonesia yang berjumlah 130 juta dengan 84 juta di antaranya berusia milenial. Di luar soal sisi negatif pemakaian Facebook yang efektif menyebarkan berita bohong oleh kubu Trump, taktik mereka mendekati “pemilih diam” ini layak diperhatikan. Di Indonesia, upaya membidik kelas menengah milenial melalui media sosial perlu diimbangi dengan distribusi konten yang mencerdaskan. Kemenangan Emmanuel Macron di Prancis, atau dukungan anak muda kepada Partai Buruh Inggris, adalah contoh positif yang bisa kita ambil. Di Indonesia, keunggulan Jokowi mendapat suara dari kelompok milenial sekitar 52 persen sejauh ini menunjukkan respons positif pemilih muda terhadap kebijakan pemerintah. Karena itu, tim kampanye inkumben seharusnya memastikan sosialisasi kebihakan dan capaian ekonomi pemerintah yang berpengaruh langsung pada kelas ekonomi
In defence of Indonesias dull presidential debates
Indonesian democracy throws up many contrasts. The public have repeatedly shown that they have little faith in the key pillars of democracy, such as political parties and the House of Representatives. Yet public trust in democracy itself remains high, and turnout in elections remains strong. How do we explain this puzzle? Scholars suggest several factors are essential to the survival and deepening of democracy, for example, the presence of formal democratic institutions, accountability and transparency in democratic processes, and a consensus among elites to respect elections and democratic process as the only legitimate channels for changing leaders. In countries like Indonesia, where liberal democratic values have been eroding significantly over recent years, the repetitive performance of democratic “rituals” is crucial.The regular displays of these rituals help to shape the identity of Indonesian citizens — who are mostly sidelined during non-election periods — as members of a democratic society. This constructed identity, in turn, provides legitimacy to Indonesia’s electoral democracy. One of the most important rituals – beyond the elections themselves – is the regular presidential debates. But before we examine the debates in greater detail, it is important to take a closer look at the health of Indonesian democracy. Paradoxes in Indonesian democracy On the one hand, the public has a low level of trust toward pillars of Indonesia’s democracy. According to a survey by Charta Politika in 2018 in eight major cities in Indonesia, only 32.8 per cent of respondents said they trusted political parties, compared to 45.8 per cent who did not trust them. Further, in another survey by Charta Politika in 2019, only 0.6 per cent of respondents said that political parties had demonstrated good performance, and only 3.8 per cent said that the House of Representatives (DPR) was performing well. Other key pillars of democracy, such as the Supreme Court and the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), also ranked lowly. Only the office of president received a relatively high appreciation rate. The lack of connection between voters and parties is also concerning – only 19.5 per cent of respondents said they identified with a political party. Corruption by legislative and party members(link is external) is one cause of the low public trust toward political parties and the DPR. Indonesia’s electoral process is also flawed. Money politics and distribution of patronage(link is external) are common in both national and subnational elections. Meanwhile, the KPU is struggling with hoaxes and fake news(link is external) and constant bickering with the Elections Monitoring Body (Bawaslu)(link is external). These problems could cause public trust to further deteriorate. On the other hand, despite the low level of public trust of democratic institutions, the Indonesian electorate is highly supportive of democracy. A recent survey by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI)(link is external) showed 73 per cent of respondents thought that democracy was the best system for the country, while 82 per cent said they believed Indonesia could be considered democratic. Turnout in national and regional elections is also comparatively high. In 2014, turnout in legislative and presidential elections was 75.1 per cent and 69.6 per cent, respectively. Likewise, in the 2018 simultaneous regional elections, average voter turnout was 73.24 per cent. Although turnout has been declining, it is still higher than many other democracies, including advanced ones like the United States. Presidential debates The presidential debates play an important role in maintaining these positive results. The KPU scheduled five televised presidential debates in this election season. They cover the most pressing issues in Indonesia, from the economy, to human rights, education, health, and terrorism. In each debate, candidates present their ideas on at least four general topics. For example, in the third debate on 17 March, the vice presidential candidates, Ma’ruf Amin and Sandiaga Uno, discussed their programs on education, health, human resources, and socio-cultural issues. Each debate lasts for about two hours, including breaks between sessions. Typically, each candidate has four minutes to present an opening statement on a particular topic. This is followed by an approximately eight-minute long session, during which each candidate must answer a question from a panel of experts, as well as comment on the opponent’s answer. When the time is up, the debate moves on to the next topic. In the third session, candidates are allowed to question their opponent about policies or plans to tackle certain issues. Finally, each candidate delivers a closing statement. Each debate presents a series of rituals, including singing the national anthem, reminders about the rules for the candidates and their supporters, a speech from the head of the KPU, and the repeated display of sealed envelopes containing the questions set by a panel of experts, to reinforce the transparency, accountability, and neutrality of the KPU. In the first two debates, the candidates selected the number of the envelope containing questions they would then answer, much like a beauty pageant. Given the limited time available for the discussion of complex issues, an apparent unwillingness to engage in fierce criticism, and the “unnecessary” rituals and debate policies set by the KPU, the first three debates disappointed many pundits and activists. Observers argue that the debates have lacked substance – the candidates did not exchange arguments but merely restated “old and recycled” policy rhetoric. As scholar Budi Irawanto said, the debates were “uninteresting, stiff, and scripted”. Public screenings Despite these disappointments, the debates remain necessary for the maintenance of Indonesia’s electoral democracy. The unnecessary rituals, the rather naïve rhetoric by the KPU chairman, the question and answer and debate sessions, and the public discussions after each debate all help to shape the identity of Indonesian people as members of a democratic society, however illusory that democratic identity may be. They create a sense of excitement and belonging in the electorate. Voters, however, are not passive recipients of these performative acts. The debates are important because for a brief moment during the long election season, voters feel that they are engaged in democracy. Many voters anticipate each debate, what the candidates will say, how
