ISSUE: 2021 No. 5 ISSN 2335-6677 RESEARCHERS AT ISEAS – YUSOF ISHAK INSTITUTE ANALYSE CURRENT EVENTS Singapore | 25 January 2021 How the 2020 Pilkada Reflected Major Structural Flaws in Indonesian Politics Yanuar Nugroho, Yoes C. Kenawas, and Sofie S. Syarief* Gibran Rakabuming Raka (L), the son of President Joko Widodo, arriving with his wife Selvie to cast their votes for his mayoral run in Solo on December 9, 2020, as Indonesia kicked off its nationwide elections. * Yanuar Nugroho is Visiting Senior Fellow at ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore and former Deputy Chief of Staff to the President of Indonesia 2015 - 2019. Yoes C. Kenawas is PhD Candidate at Northwestern University, USA, and Sofie S. Syarief is Journalist, Kompas TV, Indonesia. The authors would like to thank Titi Anggraini of PERLUDEM for sharing insights on Pilkada 2020 and Aninda Dewayanti of ISEAS for helping with the election data. 1 ISSUE: 2021 No. 5 ISSN 2335-6677 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Indonesia's regional elections (Pilkada) was held for 270 regions (municipalities/regencies and provinces) simultaneously on 9 December 2020— with the budget raised by about IDR5.2 trillion (US$370 million) for implementation of health protocols during the elections. Despite wide criticism of the decision to proceed with the elections during the pandemic, high turnouts were achieved, averaging 76%. • The 2020 Pilkada was remarkable for the lack of genuine ideological contestation among the candidates and political parties. This was reflected in the fluidity of political coalitions formed largely to pursue power instead of policy preferences. • Dynastic politics featured more prominently in 2020 Pilkada than before. For example, the President’s son and son-in-law contested and won in Solo and Medan. Many office-holders also clearly benefited from the advantages of incumbency, while newcomers suffered from high barriers to entry into the political arena. • The socio-political implications of these developments are worrying. The winning or ruling coalitions will not face any real opposition if transactional politics is the order of the day. Consequently, check-and-balance mechanisms will be weak or non-existent, and room for public criticism will shrink. Worst, these trends at the regional level may influence politics at the national level and weaken democracy in the country. 2 ISSUE: 2021 No. 5 ISSN 2335-6677 LESS IDEOLOGY, MORE SELF INTEREST: A CHRONIC PROBLEM In its most idealistic form, the foundation of democratic representation is the ability of voters to “elect politicians who reflect their beliefs and preferences”.1 Using Müller and Strøm’s categorisation,2 if the objectives of political parties are “vote- seeking, office-seeking, and policy-seeking”, the question then is: What fundamental principles can they offer to represent the people’s beliefs and preferences? There is a broad consensus that Indonesia’s political landscape lacks ideological contestation. although the country’s party system is more institutionalised than those in most neighbouring countries,3 its parties do not necessarily display ideological differences.4 They are therefore able to offer only limited social and economic policy alternatives.5 The only differentiation between parties is in the religious dimension, often identified as ‘cleavage’.6 This absence of fundamental socio-economic values to be contested paves the way for patronage to become the main driver of party behaviour,7 and necessarily leads to transactional politics based on the personal interests of those in power. Subsequently, as voters become increasingly pragmatic and transactional in response to political actors’ ability to provide cash or other tangible goods,8 the fundamental implication for the way the country is run becomes ever more lethal. The lack of ideological concerns (or in a broader sense: ideals) and the personal interest in power, have come to characterise the way the government works, both at the national and sub-national levels. This has become a chronic disease spreading across government institutions and parliament, paralysing them from carrying out their prime responsibilities. Public policies and decisions also come to be crafted in an increasingly transactional fashion. While a full-fledged analysis of this chronic problem may be a subject for another paper, here we argue that the recent regional elections (or Pilkada) in Indonesia in December 2020 amidst the COVID-19 pandemic evidently reflect the worrying conditions mentioned above, namely that in the absence of ideological contestations, self-interests take over, diminishing politics into a mere grab for power. This early post-mortem of the 2020 Pilkada considers how Indonesia’s electoral dynamics matter to the future of its democracy. PILKADA 2020: A POST-MORTEM Three patterns repeatedly appeared throughout the 2020 Pilkada, i.e., single-pair (sole candidate) elections, dynastic politics, and the challenge of holding elections amid a health crisis. Single - Pair Elections One of the main trends in the 2020 Pilkada is the increased occurrence of single candidacy, indicating the tendency among incumbents to monopolise and insulate the electoral arena from competition.9 The results confirm this observation: Solo candidates won in four cities and 21 regencies (Table 1). They secured between 52.5% to 96.2% of total votes in their respective regions, and chalked up median electoral gains of 79.75%.10 This time, no ‘Kotak 3 ISSUE: 2021 No. 5 ISSN 2335-6677 Kosong’ (empty ballot boxes) came out as the victor, unlike what happened in Makassar in the 2018 Pilkada.11 Table 1. Background of single-pair candidates and their electoral gains in the 2020 Subnational Elections Incumbency Dynastic % of Total No Subnational Unit Head (Party Affiliation) Deputy (Party Affiliation) Status Candidate12 Votes Kab. Humbang 1 Dosmar Banjarnahor (PDIP) Oloan P. Nababan (unknown) Incumbent No 52.50% Hasundutan 2 Kota Pematangsiantar Asner Silalahi (unknown) Susanti Dewayani (unknown) Newcomer Yes (Deputy) 77.40% 3 Kota Gunungsitoli Lakhomizaro Zebua (PDIP) Sowa'a Laoli (PDIP) Incumbent Yes (Head) 79.30% Former 4 Kab. Pasaman Benny Utama (Golkar) Sabar AS (PD) No 83.60% Incumbent Kab. Ogan Komering 5 Kuryana Azis (Nasdem) Johan Anuar (Golkar) Incumbent No 64.80% Ulu Kab. Ogan Komering 6 Popo Ali Martopo (unknown) Sholehien Abuasir (unknown) Yes (Head) 96.20% Ulu Selatan Incumbent 7 Kab. Bengkulu Utara Mian (PDIP) Arie Septia Adinata (unknown) Incumbent No 71.70% 8 Kab. Kebumen Arif Sugiyanto (unknown) Ristawati Purwaningsih (PDIP) Incumbent Yes (Deputy) 60.80% 9 Kab. Wonosobo Afif Nurhidayat (PDIP) Muhammad Albar (PKB) Newcomer No 63.70% Mohammad Said Hidayat 10 Kab. Boyolali Wahyu Irawan (unknown) Incumbent No 95.50% (PDIP) Kusnidar Untung Yuni 11 Kab. Sragen Suroto (PKB) Yes (Head) 80.20% Sukowati (PDIP) Incumbent 12 Kab. Grobogan Sri Sumarni (PDIP) Bambang Pujiyanto (unknown) Incumbent No 86.20% Hevearita Gunaryanti Rahayu 13 Kota Semarang Hendar Prihadi (PDIP) Yes (Deputy) 91.40% (PDIP) Incumbent Hanindhito Himawan 14 Kab. Kediri Dewi Mariya Ulfa (unknown) Newcomer Yes (Head) 76.50% Pramana (PDIP) Ony Anwar Harsono 15 Kab. Ngawi Dwi Rianto Jatmiko (PDIP) Yes (Head) 94.30% (unknown) Incumbent 16 Kab. Badung I Nyoman Giri Prasta (PDIP) I Ketut Suiasa (PDIP) Incumbent No 94.60% 17 Kab. Sumbawa Barat W. Musyafirin (PDIP) Fud Syaifuddin (unknown) Incumbent No 74.40% 18 Kab. Kutai Kartanegara Edi Damansyah (unknown) Rendi Solihin (Golkar) Incumbent Yes (Deputy) 73.80% 19 Kota Balikpapan Rahmad Mas'ud (Golkar) Thohari Aziz (PDIP) Incumbent Yes (Head) 62.40% Adnan Purichta Ichsan Abdul Rauf Malaganni 20 Kab. Gowa Yes (Head) 91.10% (Golkar) (unknown) Incumbent 21 Kab. Soppeng Kaswadi Razak (Golkar) Lutfi Halide (Nasdem) Incumbent Yes (Deputy) 86.30% 22 Kab. Mamuju Tengah Aras Tamauni (Golkar) Muh. Amin Jasa (unknown) Incumbent Yes (Head) 94.60% 23 Kab. Raja Ampat Abdul Faris Umlati (PD) Orideko I. Burdam (unknown) Incumbent No 66.60% Kab. Manokwari Wempie Welly Rengkung 24 Markus Waran (PDIP) Incumbent No 93.10% Selatan (Golkar) 25 Kab. Pegunungan Arfak Yosias Saroy (Nasdem) Marinus Mandacan (PDIP) Incumbent No N/A Source: KPU Electronic Recapitulation System (Sirekap); authors 4 ISSUE: 2021 No. 5 ISSN 2335-6677 This shows two continuing trends. First, political coalitions are increasingly fluid, and ideological stances play a minimal role in their formation. The head-deputy combinations have not necessarily come from the same national coalition camp. The head may be a PDIP’s cadre while the deputy may be a Democrat. Thus, while a candidate may be a PDIP cadre, the parties that endorsed him or her may include parties from outside the national governing coalition (See also Table 2). Parties fight over short-term political—in many cases, material—interests, and not in representation of cleavages in society.13 Table 2. Coalition of political parties of single-pair candidates in the 2020 Regional Elections Members of Coalition in No Subnational Unit Head (Party Affiliation) Deputy (Party Affiliation) Regional Elections Kab. Humbang PDIP, Nasdem, Golkar, Hanura, 1 Dosmar Banjarnahor (PDIP) Oloan P. Nababan (unknown) Hasundutan Demokrat PDIP, Golkar, Nasdem, Hanura, 2 Kota Pematangsiantar Asner Silalahi (unknown) Susanti Dewayani (unknown) Gerindra, Demokrat PDIP, Golkar, Hanura, Perindo, 3 Kota Gunungsitoli Lakhomizaro Zebua (PDIP) Sowa'a Laoli (PDIP) PKPI, Gerindra, Demokrat, PAN PDIP, Golkar, Nasdem, PKB, 4 Kab. Pasaman Benny Utama (Golkar) Sabar AS (PD) PBB, PKS, Demokrat PDIP,