The country only recently held its general elections in April. This year’s political event, which saw for the first time the presidential election held simultaneously along with the multitier legislative elections, has had an impact on the results of the elections, including the sustainability of the political parties contesting them. The Jakarta Post’s Fachrul Sidiq, Ghina Ghaliya Quddus and Imanuddin Razak have analyzed and presented the facts in today’s Special Report.


The road to Senayan — a subdistrict in South Jakarta commonly used by locals to refer to the national-level House of Representatives membership, whose headquarters is situated within the subdistrict — has always been a difficult and winding path as one needs a combination of excellent individual qualities, a strong social network, full support from a political party and last but not least, sufficient resources to finance every stage of the election, starting from the campaigning period to voting day.

Such a tough electoral process is expected as there are always surprises found in every edition of the five-yearly political event. Many incumbent legislators get reelected for another legislative term, but many — some of whom are popular faces and part of the country’s exclusive club of celebrities — also fail as they lose the race to new and younger candidates.

The fierce rivalry is also felt by the political parties contesting the elections. While it is common to see some parties securing more votes and subsequently getting more seats in the legislative councils, it is also no surprise to find that some lose votes, costing them seats at the House.

This year, the Hanura Party was completely eliminated from the House’s 2019-2024 term after it failed to pass the minimum 4 percent parliamentary threshold in the April 17 election. Hanura was part of the national legislature in the previous two terms.

There is no single explanation as to why some parties were able to progress, others had to regress and for the Hanura Party to get disqualified from the House for the next five-year term.

Saiful Mujani Research and Consulting (SMRC) researcher Sirajuddin Abbas pointed at Hanura’s prolonged internal bickering as the main reason for its failure to maintain its presence in the House.

“Its internal leadership dispute led to a power vacuum, which subsequently led to a lack of party control and coordination ahead of the 2019 elections,” Sirajuddin told the Post on Thursday.

Apart from the prolonged dispute, Hanura’s declining election results, according to Sirajuddin, could not be separated from the fact that former Hanura chairman Wiranto still had a strong influence over the party’s internal affairs as a number of key party figures quit soon after Oesman Sapta Odang stepped in to lead the party.

“These figures were known as Wiranto’s loyalists,” Sirajuddin said.

In reference to the declining achievement of the Islam-based United Development Party (PPP), Sirajuddin said the arrest of then-party chairman Muhammad Ro-mahurmuziy after being implicated in a corruption case had indeed contributed to its poor election results.

“However, Romahurmuziy’s arrest was not the sole factor as PPP’s decision to join the coalition of Joko [‘Jokowi’] Widodo and Ma’ruf Amin had also damaged its grassroots support. Some PPP members and supporters apparently favored the rival Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga Uno camp, which cost the PPP [votes],” he said.

NasDem Party chairman Surya Paloh attributed NasDem’s positive performance in the April 17 legislative election to “hard work”. NasDem, which was established in November 2011, secured about 9 percent of votes cast in this year’s election, a 3 percent increase from its achievement in the 2014 election.

“We are aware that in order to win a competition, we all must prepare ourselves wholeheartedly,” Surya told the Post at the party headquarters in a recent interview.

“We are also aware that we are not an election winner and are a relatively new political party, so we still need to work hard […] It is not yet the time for us to enjoy the comfort zone.”

Surya added that NasDem would not pursue seasonal, pragmatic results in an election, although they would be attainable and could greatly expand the party’s coffers.

“We do not deny the fact that there have been political transactions taking place at elections. You know what, you could get at least Rp 1 trillion [US$71.44 million] if your party is willing to take a ‘political dowry’ for the three different phases of regional elec-tions. But we rejected [these offers] as we are building a political foundation that I call ‘idealism’,” he said.

Sirajuddin had a different opinion on NasDem’s success in pumping up its achievement in the last election. He saw the party’s election preparation strategy as key to its success.

Graphic

“NasDem’s increased achievement in the April 17 legislative election cannot be separated from its brilliant strategy in recruiting a lot of [local] popular candidates,” the SMRC researcher told the Post on Thursday.

Unlike NasDem, the Golkar Party remains confident about its nationwide election machinery and extensive experience in the country’s political arena.

Golkar was one of the three oldest political parties contesting this year’s elections. The other two were the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) and the PPP.

Golkar chairman Airlangga Hartarto said his party’s achievement in the April 17 legislative election effectively turned all damaging speculations upside down. He cited a survey held in 2018 that concluded that Golkar would only get 6 percent of the vote. It turned out that Golkar was able to secure 12.3 percent.

Airlangga, who is also industry minister in the current Cabinet, highlighted a key strategy in Golkar’s achievement.

“We set the priority for our election victory teams. We went full steam by allocating all the necessary resources at electoral regions that are traditionally our strongholds,” he said.

“We all also know that each province has a different parliamentary seat calculation scheme. We, therefore, focused on provinces or regions that would contribute more House seats to us than those that would provide fewer seats.”

The PDI-P, meanwhile, has yet a different strategy for maintaining its election achievement as the top performer in the last two editions of the legislative election in 2014 and in 2019, as well as its success in ensuring that its own candidate, Jokowi, would secure a reelection.

PDI-P deputy secretary-general Ahmad Basarah underlined chairwoman Megawati Soekarnoputri’s role as the central and unifying figure that contributed to the party’s solid preparations ahead of the 2019 elections.

Ibu [Megawati] was the person behind our firm determination to consolidate party branches and cadres nationwide. We have a solid structure from the top at the DPP [central executive board] down to the lowest at the village levels,” Basarah told the Post on Friday.

“Party leaders at the DPP are even told to be ready 24 hours a day to monitor and take care of our party’s internal affairs. We are told to frequently visit our party branches and cadres nationwide as part of the consolidation measures.”

He conceded that Jokowi standing as a PDI-P member who is at country’s helm and represents the country’s center of gravity had contributed to the party’s steady position in the country’s political arena.

“Yes, Pak Jokowi has made a significant contribution to our election achievement. But we should not forget that it was the PDI-P that recruited and groomed him in politics. So, it’s like the PDI-P and Pak Jokowi complement each other,” Basarah said.

Sirajuddin, however, had a different opinion on Jokowi’s contribution to the PDI-P’s election victories.

“Initially, the coattail effect of Jokowi’s presidency and his PDI-P membership had a significant influence on the PDI-P’s approval rating. But three months before the [April 17] election, a series of [negative] issues launched at both Jokowi and the PDI-P proved that the Jokowi factor eventually had no effect on the PDI-P’s legislative election achievement,” Sirajuddin said. “It’s because the PDI-P was able to maintain a grip on its strongholds.”


How roles of political parties evolve over time in Indonesia

By: Fachrul Sidiq
The Jakarta Post/ Jakarta

The national political movement in Indonesia is believed to have emerged in the early 20th century during the Dutch colonial era, when Indonesians began to realize their shared goals of earning independence through a nationwide movement.

The Indische Partij, established on Dec. 25, 1912 by Douwes Dekker, Ki Hadjar Dewantara and Tjipto Mangunkoesoemo, is widely regarded as the oldest party in Indonesia, which marked the raising of awareness of the people in their pursuit of independence.

But the embryo of modern political organization appeared before that. According to a book titled The History of Political Parties and General Elections in Indonesia, authored by Kevin Raymond Evans, the birth of political party activism “occurred in the wake of a change in colonial policy” amid a low level of living standards among Indonesians despite producing enormous wealth for the Netherlands.

The introduction of the Ethical Policy in 1901 opened access to education for Indonesian youths. In 1908, a group of educated Javanese civil servants established an organization known as Noble Endeavor, which was aimed at improving standards of Javanese education as well as promoting its culture by adopting the Malay language, now called Bahasa Indonesia, as its language of communication.

A year later, The Islamic Merchants Guild was formed, which served as a trading association among Muslim traders. This commercial group turned more political and became known as the Islamic Association Party of Indonesia (PSII). In 1973, during the New Order Era, the PSII was merged into the United Development Party (PPP).

The late 19th century also marked the emergence of reinvigorated Islam, which was specifically felt by those undertaking a pilgrimage to Mecca and traveling elsewhere in the Middle East. This moment also marked the entrance of Islamic modernism to Indonesia, which aimed to counter prevailing superstition and traditionalism. The concept turned out to be well received particularly in the coastal trading cities across the archipelago.

In 1912, Islamic modernist organization Muhammadiyah was founded. It brought change to traditional education methods as it adopted modern Western styles as part of its focus of providing social service. The organization is now widely associated with the National Mandate Party (PAN).

In 1926, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), which is now known as the country’s largest Muslim organization, was established. Its establishment marked the awakening of Islamic Scholars. The group brought together Islamic leaders particularly from eastern Java, who wished to keep the traditional practices amid an insurgence of modernist Islam.

NU is widely associated with the National Awakening Party (PKB), which was founded in 1998 and stood in the 1999 election. Over time, the party began to be described as a nationalist Muslim party that promotes inclusivity and nationalist principles.

In the last several decades of Dutch rule, the colonizers had to struggle to sustain their political authority amid a steady growth of awareness among Indonesians, who began to set aside their identity as Javanese, Ambonese, Sumatran and so on, and began to see themselves as Indonesians despite the plural nature of the country.

In 1928, Indonesians adopted Bahasa Indonesia as its language of struggle for independence, through the famed declaration of The Youth Pledge.

When the Japanese began to occupy and replace the Dutch in the early 1940s, they used a growing anti-Western sentiment as a source of power to assist their own Great East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. They also saw Islam as a potential source of anti-Western support.

During their rule, political activities were banned, except Muslim groups, which then established the Islam-based Masyumi party.

After declaring Independence at the close of the World War II in 1945, Indonesia developed a temporary Constitution, expecting that by the following year a full constitutional assembly could be elected by popular vote to draft a more permanent document.

There was a contention over whether Indonesia should apply a one party state system as proposed by the new Republic’s leaders. However, other figures objected to the idea, saying that it would be fascistic and authoritarian. Indonesia decided that there should not be a restriction to one party only.

Indonesia commenced its first national election in 1955 and has since held a total of 12 elections.

The Indonesian National Party (PNI), Masyumi, NU and the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) stood out as the biggest winners in the election as they secured a total of 77 percent of the vote in the 16-party election.

When Soeharto, later known as an authoritarian leader, took the country’s leadership, Kevin described in his book that the country began to transition from competitive free and fair elections to symbolic affirmation of the right of the incumbent political system to continue.

In the 1971 election, the number of parties competing was reduced to nine only to “simplify” the system. Later the number was reduced three, namely the PPP, the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) and Soeharto’s political vehicle Golkar.

After the fall of Soeharto’s authoritarian regime in 1998, which marked the birth of the Reform Era, the election in 1999 was contested by 48 parties, covering nearly the entire political spectrum in the country, except communism, which was banned in 1965.

The election, which was supposed to take place in 2002, was expedited due to a call from the public to replace public officials affiliated with the New Order Era.

The country has seen more democratic elections since then, which peaked with direct presidential and legislative elections in 2004. In 2019, both the presidential and the legislative elections were held simultaneously for the first time.

— From various sources

Legal proof
Legal proof: An official examines boxes containing evidence that would be used in the trial of the 2019 general election result dispute at the Constitutional Court. The court session began in early July. (JP/Dhoni Setiawan)
Writers : Fachrul Sidiq, Ghina Ghaliya Quddus, Imanuddin Razak
Photographers : Seto Wardhana, Dhoni Setiawan
Managing Editor : Primastuti Handayani
Desk Editors : Pandaya, Imanuddin Razak
Art & Graphic Design Head : Budhi Button
Technology : Adri Putranto, Indra Gusti Prasetya, Abdul Harris, Mustopa
Multimedia : Bayu Widhiatmoko