SINGAPORE: Indonesia’s 2024 election campaign is now at a pivotal stage: A series of five televised debates among the contenders.
Until a week before the first round took place on Dec 12, there was still confusion surrounding the debate format and rules. This confusion was primarily whether there would be a clear distinction between debates featuring the presidential candidates (three rounds) vis-a-vis the vice-presidential candidates (two rounds).
An initial suggestion that the two vice-presidential debates might be done away with raised concerns and sparked allegations that the General Election Commission was favouring Gibran Rakabuming Raka – President Joko Widodo’s (Jokowi) son and frontrunner Prabowo Subianto’s vice-presidential candidate. Gibran is not expected to be a strong debater against his more experienced competitors, Mahfud MD (Ganjar Pranowo’s running mate) and Muhaimin Iskandar (Anies Baswedan’s running mate).
Now, the General Election Commission has decided that all candidates will be present at every round. But in the two vice presidential rounds (on Dec 22 and Jan 21), the presidential candidates will accompany their prospective running mates and while the former may speak, they cannot dominate the stage.
THE ROUND ONE WINNER IS …
The inaugural debate focused on six themes: Law, human rights, governance, corruption eradication, bureaucratic reform and the fortification of democracy. Moderated by two hosts, the event featured 11 panelists comprising subject matter experts who had meticulously formulated the debate questions and were responsible for randomly picking questions for the three candidates to address.
The participants could pose selected questions to one another and there were some heated exchanges, mainly between Prabowo and Anies. However, in a display of political finesse, all three seasoned politicians adeptly navigated the harder questions without providing definitive answers.
In this author’s view, the standout performance of the night belonged to Anies Baswedan, who presented himself as a candidate advocating for change. He appeared assertive and went on the offensive early, clearly positioning himself as a catalyst for transformation.
Leveraging his intellectual background, Anies was exceptionally at ease and energetic in the debate. He skillfully incorporated data to bolster his arguments. By making “change” the central theme and mission of his campaign, Anies strategically drew a sharp contrast between himself and President Jokowi’s administration, establishing himself as a formidable opposition figure.
On the flip side, Prabowo Subianto appeared defensive, particularly when addressing his first question on past human rights violations in Papua and Anies’ challenge to him on the Constitutional Court’s decision allowing Gibran to run as a vice-presidential contender.
Answering the charge that he was behind the kidnappings of pro-democracy activists in 1997-98, Prabowo countered that those problems had already been resolved. He bluntly asserted that even democracy activists who were once victims of kidnappings now supported him. An activist who was imprisoned during the New Order era, Budiman Sudjatmiko, former head of the leftist People’s Democratic Party, visibly endorsed Prabowo by raising his hand from the audience stand at that point.
Ganjar Pranowo assumed a middle ground and appeared somewhat uncertain about his stance, while avoiding drawing sharp contrasts with Jokowi. Ganjar’s positioning, seemingly vying for the role of Jokowi’s successor against Prabowo, might prove risky in the election. Ganjar’s debate performance lacked memorable moments even though he seemed at ease and confident, as it left voters with little to recall.
Prabowo and Anies undeniably commanded the stage. When Anies further probed Prabowo’s human rights record, it revealed Prabowo’s quick temper and tendency to condescend. Near the end of the debate, Prabowo defiantly declared he did not fear losing power. To the audience’s (albeit mainly his supporters) delight, he mocked Anies at least twice by shaking his head when addressing him, and even engaging in a gesture from his “goyang gemoy” dance.
Related:
Commentary: His son's election run could tarnish Jokowi’s legacy
Commentary: Can Indonesia’s three presidential candidates deliver on their promises?
TEMPERED CAMPAIGNING
In essence, this first debate could be aptly described as a dialogue, as participants mostly refrained from drawing sharp contrasts with each other. Ganjar and Prabowo exercised caution in evaluating Jokowi’s government.
This debate diverges from the tone of the two previous presidential campaigns in 2014 and 2019 when Jokowi faced Prabowo. Then, the campaigns were characterised by supporters’ fervour for both candidates.
In 2014, the campaign centred on preserving reform and democracy. Prabowo was perceived as a symbol of the lingering influence of the New Order regime, posing a threat to reform and democracy. In contrast, Jokowi presented himself as a representative of the common people outside elite circles and was viewed as a child of Reformasi (reform).
In 2019, the campaign revolved around pluralism with the shameless use of identity politics, marking a divisive period in Indonesian politics. Jokowi’s camp successfully portrayed Prabowo as a conservative, intolerant force backed by radical religious elements. Against this foil, Jokowi emerged as a symbol of tolerance, pluralism and multiculturalism.
The 2019 election was impacted by the 2017 Jakarta gubernatorial election, where then incumbent Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (a Christian, Chinese Indonesian governor nicknamed “Ahok” and close to Jokowi) faced contender Anies Baswedan. Massive protests by Islamic groups in December 2016 accusing Ahok of blasphemy ultimately led to his defeat. These protests were attributed to religious mobilisation which resulted in Anies gaining victory.
The mood and landscape of the 2024 election appear different. As reflected in this first debate, there is a noticeable effort to temper passion in campaigning. Prabowo no longer presents himself as the fiery nationalist warrior dedicated to protecting Indonesia’s territorial integrity. He has replaced his fervent speeches on the theft of Indonesia’s natural wealth by foreign interests with a more relaxed persona who, rather than discussing policy programmes, opts to dance.
For the 2024 campaign, political slogans have shifted from being purely political to embracing a more cheerful tone. Politics is seemingly more upbeat, where the candidates’ electability takes precedence. The presidential contenders now vie to be likeable in voters’ eyes but perhaps at the cost of avoiding serious political discourse.
Made Supriatma is a Visiting Fellow in the Indonesia Studies Programme, ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute. This commentary first appeared on ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute’s blog, The Fulcrum.