A

s President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo runs for a second term, his critics are accusing him of misusing state facilities to boost his image. His opponents and the public have pointed out various instances, ranging from public service announcements by the Communications and Information Ministry that showcased development progress made under the administration, to his plan to disburse funds to subdistricts across Indonesia during election year, which opponents believe to be politically motivated.

Where do we draw the line between an incumbent’s strategic advantage and abuse of power? When do otherwise “normal” day-to-day official visits and state programs become a hidden campaign?

Admittedly, the issue of hidden campaigning applies not only to incumbents, but also to other candidates. Of late, there have been concerns over candidates visiting pesantren (Islamic boarding schools) and other institutions where campaigning is banned, arguing that such visits are not related to their campaign.

However, the distinct problem with incumbents lies in the risk of state facilities and authorities being abused for their benefit.

While we are not disputing the regulation that allows incumbents to seek reelection without stepping down from their post first, we should continue to be aware that there can never be a clear separation between Jokowi’s role as the President and as a candidate. Although he can physically put aside party attributes during official events, it is inevitable that people will always see him within the frame of the 2019 election.

This position has created a gray area on what counts as campaigning and what does not. Take the “public service announcements” circulated by the Communications and Information Ministry. The announcements, which boasted the government’s success in building 65 dams in two seasons, were circulated in Indonesian cinemas from early September to Sept. 21 — two days before the General Elections Commission (KPU) officially announced the candidates, and three days before the campaign officially started.

Critics perceived the announcement as an early campaign before the official campaign period began, while the ministry, as expected, argued that such publications are only a means used by the government to communicate what they have achieved to the public. The ministry further justified it by stating that such publications were not new, and that they had circulated a similar announcement between April and June. However, this fact does not really address the concerns on hidden campaigning, since Jokowi’s candidacy was already obvious by then.

Several other moves by Jokowi also became subject of controversies, such as direct distribution of basic commodities to the poor and his recent plan to disburse an Rp 3 trillion (US$198 million) in funds to urban subdistricts across Indonesia. The opposition claimed that the policy was largely a political move, as it was not included in the proposed 2019 state budget, and the administration chose to distribute them during election year.

When pressed about this topic, members of Jokowi’s campaign team often defended themselves by arguing that such activities do not count as a campaign based on Law No. 7/2017 on general elections. According to the law, an activity is considered as a campaign only when it aims to influence voters through promoting vision, mission, and programs offered by the candidates, as well as promoting the image and characteristics of the candidate.

Although the controversial moves do not explicitly fit into the definition of campaigning, it is rather dismissive and naïve to take them as a completely innocent move, considering the content and timing. Some members of Jokowi’s campaign team also argued that such moves should not be an issue because voters nowadays are “smart enough” in making their decisions.

However, the issue is not merely about voter awareness, but rather about whether the candidates are in line with regulations and democratic principles. Nowadays, voters are smart enough, for example, not to be affected by serangan fajar (dawn raid) — a common practice in which campaign teams hand cash to people hours before the voting starts, to influence their decisions. However, people’s awareness does not make the move any less illegal.

Although the Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) has been relatively responsive to these issues, it needs to be more proactive in discouraging incumbents from exploiting the gray area. In facing ambiguity, the agency can borrow examples from countries with longer histories of democracy, where more stringent and clear-cut rules are applied.

In 2007, for instance, the French Constitutional Council canceled the election of Jean-Pierre Gorges as a member of the National Assembly for taking advantage of his incumbency as a mayor and the head of the Housings Association. Gorges was found to have organized ceremonies to inaugurate lodgings subsidized by the government, which the Council perceived to have influenced vote results. Another elected National Assembly member, Philippe Pemezec, also had to step down for advertising and distributing books that highlighted his past achievements as a mayor, three days prior to the election date.

Having said that, we also need to be careful in guessing where to draw the line and not to over-politicize every single move made by the President. In exceptional circumstances, such as in disaster-stricken Palu in Central Sulawesi, it is understandable that the President had to be present and distribute logistics to the people, and it is wiser to refrain from politicizing this.

The campaign period is only one month old so far, and much can happen in the remaining months up to mid-April 2019. Bawaslu must be more proactive in assessing moves by both camps to ensure that state facilities are not being misused and power is not abused. Programs that include direct distribution of goods or cash must be closely supervised, and the intention and background behind these programs must be scrutinized.

The message from Bawaslu should be clear: In a situation where candidates are faced with a gray area, they should refrain and avoid the risk of being reprimanded, instead of taking advantage of the ambiguity.
___________________