Why does Governor Ahok lose election?

Recently, with 70% approval rating, Governor Basuki “ Ahok” Purnama loses DKI Jakarta gubernatorial election to Anies Baswedan, former President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s Minister of National Education. Meritocracy through crowd wisdom seems not working. Since Jakarta is the barometer Indonesia’s politics, the reasons must be investigated and the lessons-learned must be taken out.

The background of this election is the fallout of 2014 presidential election. It is the proxy war between Prabowo’s camp and President Jokowi’s camp. It is likely the 2019 presidential election will pit both camps too. So this is the warming up.

Indonesia has been experiencing democracy for 18 years. Win or lose happens in election, but this time is different. The downgrade of Indonesia’s democracy is seen. Religious sentiment, instead of merit, emerges as the decisive factor this current election. 

Before blaming religious sentiment as the culprit, the root of the problem might be at Governor Ahok’s personality. He fails to understand that politics entails not only rational but emotional value. Understandably, along with then Governor Jokowi, he indeed makes Jakarta better with massive infrastructure development, public service and governing system and this draws national admiration. But then he becomes over-confident and so naïve.

After Jokowi being elected as president, Ahok as Governor denied Boy Sadikin, PDI-P Jakarta chapter leader to be the vice governor. Ahok preferred to be paired by Jarot Saiful Hidayat, the other PDI-P cadre and former mayor of Blitar. Later, Boy Sadikin joins Anies Baswedan campaign team. In this gubernatorial election Ahok, at first, refused to run through political parties which he deemed corruptive. He would run independently through the support of Teman Ahok (Friends of Ahok). Only after being convinced by PDI-P chairman, Megawati, and potential administration problem of collected identity cards, Ahok accepted the political reality.

Ahok is a very good governor. Like in welfare state spirit, he arguably takes care of the Jakartans from cradle to grave. I see Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew in him. But in doing this, inevitably he must do the unpopular policies, notably eviction of illegal squatters and legal settlers in the river bank. Indeed he does the right things. Without these, Jakarta will not lift up itself to world class metropolis.

Coupled with his combative demeanor, all these become ammunition for his rivals. Worse, his gaffe on Quran’s verse on arguably choosing leader in Islam brings him to court. His opportunist rivals applied the 2000 year-old Sun Tzu’s war strategy: … attack the opponent’s weaknesses. Furthermore, they relentlessly practice the end justifies the means. They cannot compete in terms of performance and achievement, not only Ahok is an incumbent but also a darn good governor.

They take advantages of barbaric religious sentiment against Governor Ahok through concerted public protests. Even Anies Baswedan who previously promotes “the fabric of the nation” seems to tear it down by seeking endorsement from the hardliners. And his supporters unabashedly threatened Governor Ahok’ deceased supporters not to perform last rites. This is the catch of Anies Baswedan’s election win.

Out of 70% approval rating, Governor Ahok only rakes in approximately 42% of votes. It means 28% of voters acknowledge Governor Ahok’s good performance but refuse to re-elect him. Besides Governor’s contentious manner, the only cogent explanation is that religious sentiment fanned by Governor Ahok’s rivals successfully changes some voters’ mind. Some Muslims can be convinced even though in earthly matters such as electing city manager, the religious label rather than capability determines the choice.

Certainly, religion is very important factor in personal and public life. However, in constitution inspired by Pancasila ideology there is no clause or article hampering any one to assume any public office because of religious identity. 

Finally, we must sincerely accept and fully support Anies Baswedan as governor. The stake for DKI Jakarta development is too high if we let him fail. Governor Ahok loses because his unsuitable character and religious sentiment. The latter lower Indonesia’s democracy standard, jeopardizes nation building and poses threat to national unity. And because of its effectiveness, I believe, somehow, some will utilize this sort of strategy as means in the next presidential election.  

*****

           

Leader who changes his mind

published @ The Jakarta Post

Prevailing wisdom says that leaders have to be consistent and stay the course. President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo and Jakarta Governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama are easily deemed to be hypocrites as they change their minds. However, in many (political) situations, changing one’s mind might be the best option to survive and reach the ultimate goal.

Recently, there were two big events that showed the reality of Indonesian politics. First, in the recent Cabinet reshuffle, Jokowi embraced two more major political parties in the coalition through appointing Golkar Party and National Mandate Party (PAN) figures as ministers. Second, Ahok threw in the hat by accepting the support of political parties in the Jakarta gubernatorial election. These moves are in contrast with their previous stances.

In his presidential campaign, Jokowi boasted a slim coalition and Ahok, supported by Teman Ahok, declared that he would run in the election as an independent candidate.

Many, myself included, never cast doubt on President Jokowi’s and Governor Ahok’s integrity. And in these cases they were right to change their positions. To me, they have to stay in power because their leadership is badly needed. They have ushered in a new kind of government that serves the people.

On paper, although impeachment is legal, a president can hardly be unseated. But Indonesian politicians are reckless and unpredictable. With their power and track records, they do anything to pursue their own interests.

Worse, President Jokowi’s Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) frequently opposes his policies, the latest being its rejection of the tax amnesty bill. That’s why Jokowi expanded the coalition to defend his policies and safeguard his presidency.

In a similar vein, Ahok finally chose to run under the banner of political parties as the latter would do anything to invalidate the million vote pledges his volunteers collected for him. Although overwhelmingly leading in many polls, Ahok may have been unable to contest the election because of administrative matters. So embracing political parties was a safe option.

Do great leaders change their minds? Abraham Lincoln, one of American greatest presidents, kept changing his. Once he said: “[…] as soon I discover my opinions to be erroneous, I shall be ready to renounce them.”

*****

Biological process explains Iraq War

published @ The Jakarta Post

The unfolding chaos in Iraq is very similar to biological processes in nature. A book entitled Serengeti Rules — The Quest to Discover How Life Works and Why It Matters by Sean B. Carroll, a molecular biologist, which was recently published, is unlikely to be able to explain the Iraq war. Serengeti is a national park located in Tanzania and Kenya. In the early 1960s, the park saw a rapid explosion of buffalo, wildebeest and giraffe. After analyzing data, biologists concluded that the cause was rinderpest, a virus that kills cattle, wildebeest and buffalo. After the outbreak of rinderpest, an eradication campaign in the 1950s succeeded in reducing cases of rinderpest.

There appeared to be a correlation between rinderpest and the rise and fall of wildebeest and buffalo. When rinderpest is down, wildebeest and buffalo are up, vice versa. This gives us some idea of the Serengeti Rules, which are relevant to the Iraq war.

First, elements/players in ecosystem/societies correlate with each other following certain rules. The change of one element can be followed by the rapid change of other elements. Saddam Hussein was in only one element in Iraqi society. The ramification of Saddam’s removal lead to the rise of ISIS and a Sunni-Shiite sectarian war.

Second, Saddam to Iraq is like wildebeest to Serengeti Park. They are keystone of society/ecosystem. The keystone (species) is the most important element in ecosystem. The change of keystone results in the change of whole elements in society/ecosystem.

Third, repressors play a key role in the existence of elements. The population of wildebeest and buffalo is regulated or in this case suppressed by the existence of rinderpest as a repressor. In a similar vein, Sunni-Shiite conflict and the rise of radical groups is regulated by the existence of a dictator. An understanding of biology will enrich the insight of policymakers and help them avoid simplistic solutions that bring about disastrous consequences.

* * * * *

How to stop Islamic State?

published @ The Jakarta Post

After Paris, Western countries and their allies are trying to figure out how to eliminate Islamic State (IS) movement. Unfortunately, there are confused about the problem and subsequently, there are flaws in their strategy.

Western countries see IS as a problem caused by Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. Western logic goes like this: In the midst of the Arab Spring, Syrians wanted democracy and so they rebelled against President Assad. And then IS, a free rider, infiltrated the rebellion with its own agenda. Accordingly, the solution is very simple: Assad must go, period. But we should ask: Is this true?

First, a disturbing fact is that Western allies, namely Turkey and the Gulf countries, put their weight behind the rebels. But embarrassingly, they themselves are not democratic countries.

To some extent, Turkey is not democratic because it regularly suppresses media freedom. And Turkey has also acted unfairly toward the Kurds and has never accepted them as a part of the nation. And the Gulf countries, most especially Saudi Arabia, know nothing about democracy, and yet they presumed to get involved in a democratic rebellion in Syria. This is the pot calling the kettle black.

Second, IS didn’t come out of thin air and strengthen its position without outside help. Former British prime minister Tony Blair has publicly acknowledged that the war in Iraq helped create IS. Turkey and the Gulf nations helped to arm the Syrian rebels. What we don’t know is whether the rebels they raised included IS factions. We have known for a long time that Saudi Arabia finances Salafist movements and it is Salafist Muslims, alongside disaffected Sunnis in Iraq and Syria, who form the backbone of IS.

If you look at the map, you will see that the only safe way for foreigners to join IS is through Turkey. When three British teenagers left London to join IS, they flew to Turkey. These facts must be acknowledged before developing any strategy to fight IS. Unfortunately, Western powers overlook these facts to keep these allies on their side.

* * * * *

The New White Man's Burden

published @ The Jakarta Post

To euphemize America’s colonization in the Philippines, Rudyard Kipling, a British writer, “justified” it as the white man’s burden to spread its superior civilization. Certainly, the true motive of colonization is self-serving. After centuries, the burden is still undertaken — America and its western allies still force its interests on the rest of the world, but now with the backfire of the migrant crisis in Europe.

The recent news is rife with the heart-rending stories of Syrian refugees. Prolonged civil war and Islamic State (IS) movement savagery force them to leave their homes. The root of the problem is partly the West’s interference in the conflict in Syria (and Middle East in general). But this takes place in the cloak of spreading democracy and defending human rights.

The Arab spring — the demand for democracy — engulfed the Middle East and North Africa a few years ago. But it turned out the West’s own geopolitical and economic profit takes precedence over democracy. The unintended consequence of Western intervention in the Middle East is the rise of IS. Moreover, this group would have never existed without support from Gulf countries and Turkey, the allies of the West. The West and its allies have helped create a monster that they now fear.

Now Iraq, Libya and Syria are torn apart; the economy has collapsed; public services have disappeared; the fabric of society unravels. So when all hopes dash, the people must flee their homelands. The recent migrant crisis is unprecedented. After four years in war, the Syrian refugees are the middle class. With their skills and education, they vote with their feet and seek asylum in Europe. This is the new white man’s burden. The West must in part take responsibility. Had the West not intervened the refugee crisis would have been non-existent.

The genie is out of the bottle. The West, particularly the US, says it supports human rights, now it is time for it to prove it by accepting these refugees.

* * * * *