A Prabowo win will affirm elite legitimacy

By Lauren Gumbs

The red flags are there: Prabowo Subianto by his very position as a presidential candidate reaffirms the normative status of oligarchy in Indonesian society.

Grassroots contender Joko Widodo on the other hand represents a progressive new way for Indonesia, a product of the transformative power of democracy to enable those from outside the system.

There is a choice at stake here; Joko illustrates how oligarchy can be eroded with the deepening of democratic instutions, and Prabowo represents elite resistance to a full realisation of democratic pluralism. 

Prabowo has commented that Indonesian cultural traditions need to be protected and maintained so that Indonesians don’t lose their sense of identity and end up awash in "excessive democracy".

Well if anyone can challenge excessive democracy, it is Prabowo, who is just the man for the job of heritage listing such time honoured traditions as oligarchy and patrimony.

Prabowo has suggested that the pre 1998 constitution was a more glorious era, sparking concerns he might have plans to wind back Indonesian democracy to the period of the 1945 Constitution, a time before constitutional amendments diluted concentrated presidential power.

In Prabowo’s ideal version of a uniquely Indo-democracy, decision making is taken away from the people and elites hold consultative power; a better cultural fit he says.

The symbolism of Prabowo as part of the old guard – a former military man and established member of the elite oligarchy with the backing of limitless financial resources - has only been reinforced through his coalition with Hatta Rajasa, a millionaire businessman and political elite in his own right.

The choice between Prabowo and Joko is stark. Joko Widodo is seen as an untested political outsider, a common man of the people with a strong social justice conscience who rose to prominence through his quietly firm and tempered approach to leadership.

Prabowo on the other hand is a product of a time when democracy was an idea and violence was a political necessity. This was a man who was socialised with the idea that the maintenance of power is contingent upon the hegemonic continuation of vested interests and the legitimate use of military force.

It has been difficult for Prabowo to shake his roots in military and political circles and he has certainly made his campaign a celebration of himself with lavish and grandiose displays of massive funding while he literally rides around in uniform on a white horse. 

Despite the shameless spectacle of self, Suharto's former son in law is one of many who have not been acountable to allegations of human rights abuses.

Despite the lack of prosecutions for those involved in acts of violence and human rights abuse pre 1998, many Indonesians look back with fondness on Suharto’s heavy-handed rule, admiring Prabowo as capable of strong leadership.

Prabowo is admired in a similar way to that of Thailand's Thaksin Shinawatra who has a large rural following who support his policies aimed at alleviating poverty.

Yet 'Thaksinocracy' is a term used to describe Thaksin's government where cronyism, double standards, bias and corruption are widespread.

Instead of ruling out an ambiguous figure with serious allegations over his head, Prabowo's supporters see Prabowo as capable of delivering the leadership Indonesia needs.

And Prabowo might just get the chance to resurrect autocratic, paternalistic elements from the old days as the polls showed a previously unpredicted swing in votes from an undoubtable Joko win to a neck and neck race.

If it shows anything, it's how Prabowo’s well-funded and organised campaign made a convincing case for many undecided Indonesians, particularly youth with a nationalist bent who do not remember pre 1998 life.

There was always the fear that another strongman would exploit the existing system to gain power and then engage in regressive reforms to keep it.

With 16 years of democracy and still no prosecutions for those who engaged in the suppression of pro-democracy supporters, truth and justice may not get a chance to have their day if an alleged perpetrator of past abuses is voted in by the very people who should be demanding his accountability.

With so many of the old guard still hanging around in executive, legislative and corporate insitutions, it hasn’t been easy to reconcile history and it will be even harder to cement democracy with unresolved human rights blighting the national conscience.

Oligarchies are hard to shake, but so too are ideas that “strong leaders” with authoritarian tendencies are just what Indonesia needs and that life under Suharto was a happier kind of structured.

Is Indonesian democracy established enough to withstand the potential erosion of pluralism by presidential competitors like Prabowo?

Do Indonesians need more impunity against human rights abuses and less freedom of speech?

Last year President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono floated the idea of bringing back leste majeste type laws preventing criticism of the president. This was a red flag that illustrates the fragility of Indonesia's democracy and the stubborn persistence of the idea that restricting rights and participation in political speech is ok.

Indonesia has come so far since 1998, hopefully to the point that a Thaksin style Prabowo following will not polarise the electorate in a way that permeates the competitive diversity and dynamism of Indonesian political parties and flourishing civil society movements who are working hard at democratisation.

Concentrated authority in the hands of the president upsets the balance of power, even supposedly small changes like consultative democracy has dire repercussions.

With such complex pressures and challenges to the robustness of democratic institutions, what sort of impact would Prabowo have on a system still establishing itself and a citizenry that haven’t quite shaken the legitimacy of the elites?

Lauren Gumbs is the blog editor at the Indonesia Institute. Her views are her own.