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.

* * * * *

Political Dynasty

published @ The Jakarta Post

This is to respond to The Jakarta Post’s editorial entitled “Unbreakable dynasties” on July 10. I completely agree with the Constitutional Court verdict scrapping the discriminatory clause in Law No. 8/2015 on regional elections.

Previously, the law included unfairly banning relatives of the incumbent to run in regional head elections. In a democracy, as long as no law is being broken, people’s choice should be the only filter in the election.

A political dynasty is not necessarily a bad thing. In America — the pioneer of modern democracy — political dynasties are well-accepted. No one is complaining about the Kennedy family, Bush family, or Clinton family for dominating American politics.

They ascend to power simply because of their capability of public service. The dynasty grooms them well and politics is ingrained in daily life. Nothing is wrong with this. Unfortunately, instead of quality, the Indonesia’s political dynasties depend only on popularity.

The essence of democracy is crowd wisdom. The idea is that all eligible voters decide and the outcome naturally fits with the people’s interest. And the precondition for a functional democracy is the quality of voters. They must be aware of how a democratic system works.

They must know the wrong decision means disaster to their opulence. Dating back to early democracy, only the rich, professional and the likes whose interest need protection could vote. They were very rational and only voted for the candidates who would really take care of them. Gradually, more people became eligible and finally universal suffrage was applied.

Democracy was not invented here. Indonesia is not well prepared to embrace democracy. Since the beginning, Indonesia has implemented universal suffrage — no filter for irrational voters. Both rational and irrational voters will choose a leader. Unsurprisingly, the outcome sometimes is illogical.

The member of a political dynasty who achieved nothing in the past, even without experience, can easily assume office. Democracy goes haywire.

Accordingly, the key is the rational voters. People must have awareness of the consequences of their choices. Good education emphasizing logic might work for this goals. Since we can reverse the flow of democracy, to be fair, political dynasties must be accepted. To curb the much-concerned corruption, law must rigorously and indiscriminately be enforced. To avoid the low quality of popular candidates, the people must be filled with information.

In my opinion, in the long term this will work.

The problem of Indonesia’s political dynasties lies in the existence of rational voters rather than the political dynasty itself. Had the people become rational, the regional heads would have been democratically selected based on meritocracy. The best must lead the rest.

* * * * *

Understanding the Greek tragedy

published @ The Jakarta Post

Tragedy is surrounding Greece. Since the economic crisis in the eurozone in 2008, Greece has never recovered. The economy is shrinking and unemployment soaring. To fix the economy, Greece borrows money from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). As usual, the IMF’s recipe for handling economic crisis is focused on austerity.

In contrast with Keynesian economics — where governments spend to move an economy in recession — austerity measures involve government budgets tightening up and letting the economy grow by itself. This recipe is frequently wrong, and it has turned out to be wrong in Greece. The Greeks has suffered for years with austerity measures that don’t work. It is unsurprising that in the referendum recently held over approval of more austerity measures, the Greek people rejected them. Why does tragedy continue to happen in Greece? There are two reasons: the eurozone and the Greek welfare state.

The European Union was established to avoid wars among European nations. After two devastating world wars, the Europeans wanted unity of all countries, politically and economically, to strengthen peace in Europe. Of the EU’s members, some have adopted a single currency, the euro, which was introduced in 1999. The group of countries using the euro is called the eurozone.

Many, including EU members, had doubts about the idea of a single European currency. That’s why England has not adopted the euro. A single currency means a single interest rate for all countries involved. It is a flawed theory. Every country has a different economic performance and different economic problems. Germany is very competitive.

It failed in theory, and now it has failed in practice.

Make no mistakes, the other problem lies in Greece itself. Welfare-state policies introduced by the much revered Andreas Papandreou, a socialist, are to blame. He served two terms in office – 1981 to 1989 and 1993 to 1996.

His legacy has unintentionally contributed to Greece’s bankruptcy. For instance, the Greek pension system is “better” than that of Germany. In Germany, 40 years of service allows a civil servant to get a pension equivalent to 70 percent of their final basic salary. In Greece, however, after only 35 years, if you are 58 or older, you receive 80 percent of your previous salary.

The Greek tragedy of economic disaster is currently being written.

* * * * *

The Role of Indonesia's Middle Class

published @ The Jakarta Post

To some extent Indonesia’s democracy makes us proud. Along with the Filipinos, the Indonesians enjoy more political freedom than their ASEAN peers. In Thailand, for example, the army has launched many coups d’état.

The quasi-democracies in Malaysia and Singapore render the ruling parties too strong and no democracy exists in Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos or Brunei.

There’s a sizeable middle class in Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia. And thanks to good governance, their economies fare well, too. But in terms of the government, change through election and the power of the middle class shaping the country, their democracies are still inchoate.

The middle class is free, rational, financially independent and politically aware. The middle class is the backbone of democracy. The government elected is the reflection of the middle class’ interests and aspirations. The middle class keenly gets involved in politics (through voting in general elections) because the results will have a direct impact on their welfare. Accordingly, the politicians must curry favor from them to gain support.

Indonesia’s middle class exists, grows and has a say. The public opinions are, in part, cultivated and formed through social media, the middle class’ ultimate weapon. Current national issues are openly discussed through “posting”, “twitwar” and widely spread through “like”, “retweet” or “hashtag”. This power has been applied well and has forced lawmakers to align with public demand. The reinstatement of direct elections for regional heads is a case in point.

The last presidential election also showed how rational our voters are, arguably led by the middle class. The voters were given two choices: mighty Prabowo Subianto or humble Joko “Jokowi” Widodo. Prabowo offered the grandeur of Indonesia, which was so abstract; Jokowi simply brought in examples of how to fix Indonesians’ problems, such as citizen administration, business and investment licensing administration, health care, education, etc. Finally, Indonesians voted for Jokowi.

But the middle class doesn’t stop in the wake of an election. After taking office, Jokowi is not necessarily given a blank check. The recent brouhaha shows the well-functioning middle class. President Jokowi has made a lousy decision — proposing a graft suspect to be National Police chief. He, of course, goes to the devil. The incandescent middle class votes with their feet and dog-piles the protests against their beloved President Jokowi.

For a long time Indonesia has been crippled by corruption. Many law enforcement institutions have also been entangled by this epidemic. Somehow, President Jokowi lost touch with this long-standing reality. The corruptors and friends have been trying to flip our logic upside-down. They move swiftly and shrewdly, benefitting the weakness of institutions and the legal system. And this time, again, Indonesia needs the middle class to utter the guile and spread it.

We pin our high hopes for a better Indonesia on Jokowi, but Jokowi’s underperformance on corruption eradication takes the edge off our hope. It nullifies his achievements and our admiration. And the lesson learned is that Indonesia hardly relies on a Superman-like president to put everything right. This makes the role of the middle class in politics desperately needed and indispensable. In short, the middle class matters to safeguard Indonesia’s democracy and common sense.

* * * * *

You Fail Us, Mr. President

published @ The Jakarta Post

President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo deserves accolades galore. He is an entrepreneur-turned-public leader who is has responsive, hands-on, has an egalitarian demeanor and is result-oriented. He blazed a trail to set an unprecedented standard of modern leadership in Indonesia’s government. He put people’s interests first. He showed us that to govern is to serve.

A leader is not a boss behind a desk watching his subordinates work hard. A leader must glean data and information firsthand through impromptu visits. Then, he must make strategic decisions quickly, enable their implementation and control the work until the goals are accomplished. Jokowi has practiced what he preached during his stints serving as mayor of Surakarta and governor of Jakarta, which later catapulted him to the presidency.

During the barnstorming, he made many promises. He would develop a clean government and would be independent regardless of political coalitions. He would never buckle under the coalition party. The party would only join a coalition with no strings attached. And because of his impeccable track record, we believed Jokowi would be different. He gave us a glimmer of hope.

Prior to the appointment of his ministers, again, he stunned us by unprecedentedly seeking recommendations from the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK). This means Jokowi kept his promise of a clean government. Moreover, he scrapped fuel subsidies and burned foreign vessels caught fishing illegally. That proved Jokowi was decisive. So far so good.

However, his recent decision on a candidate for National Police chief really shocked us. Unbelievably, he proposed somebody who had been previously disqualified by the KPK and PPATK during the ministerial selection. Even after the candidate had definitively been named a graft suspect by the institution that has earned wide public respect and trust, the KPK, Jokowi still unequivocally defended his choice. We were taken aback. It was not the Jokowi we knew.

Worse, his political supporters ranging from TV stations, lawmakers to party chairpeople scrambled to convince us that Jokowi’s decision was right. They said that the candidate’s allegedly fat bank account had been cleared by an internal investigation as being legal wealth. And procedurally, the candidate was also recommended by the National Police commission. But their logic didn’t add up.

After believing in God, we, Indonesians, believe in the KPK. The institution would never name someone a suspect without solid proof. Nobody has ever been exonerated in a case handled by the KPK. Why does our beloved President Jokowi believe that this case will go against the grain?

He has nine candidates on his hands. Besides questionable integrity, the graft-suspect candidate achieved nothing of significance in the past, so why did Jokowi persistently promote him? Who gave him such lousy advice of abandoning the KPK and PPATK? Even if later, the KPK turns out to be wrong, why should he take the unnecessary risk of forfeiting his political capital of public trust? On this point, Jokowi has started to show his two-facedness on developing a clean government. We have also started to question his independence and think his law-enforcement commitment is too good to be true.

Jokowi’s decision on the National Police chief candidate ticked off his supporters, myself included. His volunteers, who believe he can bring Indonesia to prosperity, cried foul. But it seems he is unfazed, despite canceling, but not revoking, the candidacy.

* * * * *

Democracy in India and Indonesia

published @ The Jakarta Post

India and Indonesia are regarded as the world’s largest and third-largest democracies respectively. India and Indonesia have many similarities. Both declared independence at relatively the same time and each founding father, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sukarno were co-founders of the non-aligned movement. Both have large populations and social diversity. Both are still developing and still grappling with poverty, red tape and inadequate infrastructure.

The differences are India has embraced democracy since its earliest days, while Indonesia achieved it in 1998 after toppling president Soeharto. In terms of economics, Indonesia under president Soeharto‘s administration was touted as an economic miracle. India’s economic growth has been anemic for decades. Nehru’s legacy was opting for centralized development planning. Amid the financial crisis in the 1990s, India, led by then prime minister Narasimha Rao and then finance minister, Manmohan Singh, started reforming the economy and moving to a market economy.

It is worth noting that in India a state is managed by a party and led by a chief minister. Through economic surveys, each state’s performance is publicly announced. Each party boasts about the best performance of states under its rule. So, before elections Indians have references on a political party’s performance. The party hardly promises anything beyond reality.

In a similar vein, Indonesia has been under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s (SBY) administration for 10 years. The best he gave us was stability in economy and politics. The economy has grown by around 5 percent during his two terms, which brought Indonesia into the G20 as a country shaping the global economy. And there has been no significant turmoil in politics. However, his administration has been tainted with corruption scandals implicating the top brass of his Democratic Party.

Thanks to democracy Indonesia has also given birth to a new leader. To many people, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo was seen as the best choice to replace SBY and bring Indonesians to prosperity. Like India’s Modi, his meteoric rise started from the success in managing a municipality, Surakarta. He made many breakthroughs in the economy, infrastructure and public services through a hands-on approach.

Later, this achievement brought him to lead Jakarta and ultimately to lead Indonesia. To this point, Indians and Indonesians have got the leaders they wanted. However, India and Indonesia have different political systems. Under the parliamentary system, Indians know exactly what party to vote for if they want Modi to be prime minister. And in the last general election, the BJP-led coalition swept the parliament.

In contrast, Indonesia subscribes to a presidential system with the result that legislative elections do not necessarily correspond with the presidential election. The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P)-led coalition who managed to secure Jokowi’s presidency got fewer seats than those of the opposition coalition. The debacle begins.

Even before the new president is sworn in the opposition is trying everything to show their force in controlling legislation and trying to hamper all the executives’ policies. The amendment to the law regarding the House of Representatives leadership is a case in point.

As an Indonesian, I am very envious of the Indians. In India, the fierce rivalry during the general election has completely stopped as the loser has given way to the winner. And the newly established government has started working with full confidence and support. In Indonesia, the future looks grim and uncertain. The fallout of the presidential election still exists and, sadly, Jokowi’s administration – instead of working to catch up with the progress of other developing nations – has to start quarrelling with the House about many issues for the next five years.

* * * * *

Wrong debate on local election bill

published @ The Jakarta Post

Recently, the Red-and-White Coalition led by Prabowo Subianto has been making trouble again. They are trying to re-enact the election of local leaders through city/district councils instead of by direct election. Their intention is loud and clear. Their combined representatives dominate the councils, so they have the biggest chance of retaining the regional top jobs all over Indonesia. The coalition’s hidden motive is to exact revenge for losing the presidential election. However, their move, which jeopardizes Indonesia’s nascent democracy, must be stopped.

The main reason is that with power in the hands of councilors, prior to local elections, leadership candidates will meekly focus their efforts to appeal to the councilors instead of the people. This is susceptible to bribery. And after the election, the new leader will serve and please the powerful councilors rather than the powerless people.

The interests of councilors are very different from the interests of the people. The former pursues the enjoyment of power while in contrast the latter wants the best public service. And the facts show that the much-admired leaders such as Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, Ridwan Kamil, Tri Rismaharini, Nurdin Abdullah are the ones who deliver results and are directly elected by all the people.

Due to the recent maelstrom of debate, the substantial matter of regional autonomy needs be given priority. The debate should not be whether a leader is selected through direct election or not, but it must be at what level regional autonomy applies.

Ryaas Rasyid, former regional autonomy minister, once cited the overlapping of authority among governor and regents in one province. In fact, the governor has no “real” authority in the province, since the regents have already ruled on the regencies in the province. He said it was a waste that a governor had technical offices such as public works, health etc., which were matters that were already managed by regencies. So it would be better if the real debate on local government revision, including elections, was this overlap. There are at least two options available, namely autonomy at provincial level or at regency level.

If regional autonomy lies at regency level, then the services to people are wholly provided by the local government of the regency. The governor must not have technical offices and not be elected by people but be appointed by central government. The real function of a governor would be to represent central government in the province.

If regional autonomy is handed to the provincial level, then the power goes to the governor. The governor will be elected by the people and be held responsible for providing public services. The regents will be appointed by the governor and serve as the area managers to implement the governor’s policy. Some have rejected this structure because it resembles federalism which is stigmatized in Indonesian politics.

This is the crucial matter that should be debated and solved. It definitely concerns the effectiveness and efficiency of local government. And to join the fray, I propose that regional autonomy should stop at the provincial level.

Jakarta is the best example of autonomy at the provincial level. The governor is directly elected by the people, while all mayors are appointed by the governor. And Jakarta is a big province in terms of population and so far this system has worked.

* * * * *

RI's Democracy Homework

published @ The Jakarta Post

Democracy is a system to form a governing institution and its leader for a certain term through regular general elections. The underlying idea is to get wisdom from the crowd. However, effective democracy needs several intertwined conditions, including a relatively high-income society and a rules-conscious society.

People’s prosperity is the cornerstone of democracy. Psychologists know well that people who lose their wealth suffer more, as compared to long-time poor people. So, the richer the people, the more rational they will be. They will apply freedom hand in hand with obligation. They will not endanger their good lives by not participating in forming a legitimate government. Some experts suggest that democracy runs better in a country with a per capita income of more than US $10,000 a year. That’s why in earlier years suffrage was only for the rich and land owners.

The other substantive matter of democracy in a general election is competition. Rules are set and all participants must abide by these. There is a referee who supervises the competition and guarantees fair play. The competition results in a winner and inevitably a loser. And most importantly, the loser must accept the results gracefully. That’s why, in a mature democratic country, soon after the quick count result, the loser will give a concession speech and ask his supporters to support the winner. If not, democracy brings chaos.

These preconditions bring us to the current situation of RI’s nascent democracy. In fact, after 16 years RI’s democracy has run quite well. However, the recent dispute in the presidential election is a wake-up call. Here are some notes:

Hours after the election people got confused because the two camps claimed different results. One camp announced Prabowo Subianto’s win, but the other claimed Joko “Jokowi” Widodo won. But if we scrutinize further we find that the former camp carried out its survey with a tendency to justify Prabowo’s win. The latter’s result was similar to the General Election Commission’s (KPU’s) result. Obviously, the quick count had been used to disrupt the democratic process and give false hopes to the loser.

Second, there was the blow-up over baseless vote-rigging accusations. After expressing jubilation at “winning” the election, Prabowo‘s supporters asked people to wait for the KPU’s result, but one or two days before the KPU’s announcement Prabowo suddenly asked for a cancellation. Then he withdrew from the vote recapitulation process just minutes before the official announcement that declared Jokowi the winner.

As a last ditch effort, Prabowo resorted to his constitutional rights by filing his case with the Constitutional Court. He made accusations about a structured, systematic and massive vote rigging by the KPU.

Finally, some have blatantly abused the tools of democracy, such as the quick count and the right to dispute the results, since there is no solid proof — let alone 10 truckloads of evidence. Unfortunately, some people still buy this humbug and tolerate such denial of losing. This might be the corollary of a lack of education.

* * * * *

Lessons Learned from Ukraine

published @ The Jakarta Post

The crisis unfolding in Ukraine might give lessons learned and paint a picture of the world we live in. American values and interests rule the world; the supply of basic needs (food, energy) is a powerful tool in international politics; the Cold War has not completely vanished; but the odds of world war are also small.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, each Soviet state declared independence from Russia, including Ukraine. In fact, the tension of the Cold War waned for some time. However, the geography of these countries — Russia in the east and western Europe in the west — creates unintended consequences.

This incurs a repeated tug-of-war between Russia and the Western bloc. On grounds of economic benefits, many European countries eagerly joined the Western bloc and NATO, but Russia is uneasy when surrounded.

So Russia interferes with domestic politics in order to keep its neighbors under Russian influence. It ignites conflicts, first in Georgia in 2008 and now, Ukraine. However, in the big picture this Ukraine conflict also tells us, at least, three things.

First, we live in a US-dominated world. It is the US that defines what is good and what is bad. When Moscow assisted the Crimea separatists, the US condemned this action and imposed sanctions. But, if we juxtapose Ukraine with Syria, we get confused with what’s right and what’s wrong. The US backs the rebels, including al-Qaeda-linked Islamists, to topple the legitimate regime. It also did this in Libya. And the world must acquiesce and never impose any sanctions.

However, the US is absolutely not all that bad. Thanks to the US, the world flourishes with innovations, respect of human rights, freedom to choose and democracy.

Their values are virtuous, though sometimes they don’t walk the talk. It can’t imagines if the most powerful country were to be Russia or China.

Second, the security of basic needs (food, energy) is very important to any country. Self-sufficiency is a must, otherwise the supplier will dictate. In terms of energy, Ukraine is very fragile. Each bold decision made by Ukrainian leaders always brings the fear of the gas supply being cut off by Gazprom, the Russian gas company owned by the government. Back in 1973, the Arabs adopted this very “weapon” to support Egypt against Israel in the Yom Kippur War.

This cautionary tale might also happen in regards to the food supply. This explains why the most advanced countries — belied to their preaching of free trade — always give subsidies to their farmers. It’s simply because they don’t want to starve in case of war with food suppliers.

Once, Indonesia depended on US-made weapons systems. Due to human rights infringement in Timor Leste, the US banned spare parts supplies and left the weapons in bad shape.

Third, the whole world is more civilized now than it was hundreds years ago. This confirms the thesis of Steven Pinker, the author of bestselling book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, which argues that violence among nations and among people has declined throughout human history. Nowadays, people more often resolve disputes with talks rather than weapons.

As the crises are escalating in Ukraine and in Syria, solutions through diplomatic channels intensify. Vladimir Putin of Russia and Barack Obama of the US call each other. And their respective foreign ministers, John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov, work hand in hand to sort out problems. Indeed, the world’s superpowers have no appetite to wage a full-scale war.

The time of war is relatively short when a superpower gets involved directly. Libya, which has no superpower backing it, is a case in point.

But the US hardly attacked overtly in Syria because of Russia’s support. The same is true in the South China Sea conflict between China and the US-supported Philippines.

Prolonged, unwinnable and mutually devastating war is always a last resort.

* * * * *

Reading Megawati's Tweets

published @ The Jakarta Post

I confess that I had been one of Megawati Soekarnoputri’s critics, based on her short presidential stint in 2001–2004. Unlike her much-revered father, founding president Sukarno, she did not deliver good, interesting speeches. The content of her speeches was mostly dull, and worse, some of her policies were controversial, such as divesting the state-owned telecommunications company, Indosat, and selling cheap gas from the Tangguh field to China. 

Although these have drawn criticism since she was in office, I have never heard her defend herself. Only her Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) supporters have tried to make unsatisfactory rebuttals. We may all think that she has no answers and is barely able to think independently. In which case, she implemented these policies because her ministers or advisers told her to do so. Until recently, she had put up quite a convincing case in this regard via the social media site, Twitter. 

She tweeted explanations of her controversial policies regarding Indosat and Tangguh gas on her Twitter account, @MegawatiSSP. 

After taking the helm after president Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid, Megawati faced a budget shortage. There was also money owing to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In addition, the country’s military equipment, including warships and fighter jets, were aging. The US had not only embargoed military spare parts due to the Dilli Santa Cruz massacre in East Timor, but it had also stationed one of its aircraft carriers at the intersection of the Java Sea and Timor Sea, infringing Indonesia’s maritime territory. The Indonesian Military (TNI) was powerless and could do nothing.

To address this, Megawati decided to divest valuable state assets, of Indosat and several other state-owned enterprises. After filling its coffers, the government paid off its IMF debt and bought military weapons from Russia and Poland, such as Sukhoi fighter jets and helicopters. New barracks for military personnel were also built and existing barracks repaired to improve morale. 

At the same time as improving its military hardware, the government launched soft power initiatives through intensifying diplomatic ties with Russia, China, North Korea and Eastern European countries. This sent a strong and clear message to the US on which bloc Indonesia was in if the former’s aircraft carrier kept sailing in our territory. 

Another source of money the government had was the Tangguh gas field. Unfortunately, China was the only potential buyer and investor for exploitation, as Indonesia was competing against another supplier, Russia. All things considered, the only way to convince China to establish the plant and buy the gas was to offer low prices with strings attached. 

China would assist the government in establishing power plants, access roads to villages and megaprojects, such as bridges and ports. And the price would be reviewed in five years’ time after the first eight years. Another heart-touching requirement was that China had to help 1.2 million starving North Koreans.

After reading all her tweets, I suddenly saw Megawati differently and accepted her accounts. This does not necessarily mean that she introduced the best policies compared to other alternatives. But she has given us an insight into why she reached those decisions, basing them on several understandable and plausible considerations. Megawati may be a bad communicator, but she is not an entirely bad decision maker.

* * * * *

Reflecting on General Elections

published @ The Jakarta Post

Democracy is often considered to be the best way to organize a country and achieve prosperity. Western countries always preach this to the developing world. India and Indonesia, as the world’s largest and third-largest democracies, are often cited as the paragons. In contrast, China is deemed to be moving down the wrong path because it abandoned democracy.

However, if we scrutinize further, Western countries implemented democracy in a gradual process. Most importantly, they became fully democratic only after they had developed their economies, governing institutions and educational systems.

A general election (boasting universal suffrage) is the be-all and end-all of true democracy. It is important to note that in their nascent democracies, Western states limited the people who were entitled to cast their ballots; the UK and the US are cases in point.

England was the country that inspired modern democracy. Following the signing of the Magna Charta in 1215, the first parliament was established in 1265 containing two chambers: the House of Lords comprising unelected aristocrats, and the House of Commons, which contained elected members of parliament (MPs). However, the only people allowed to vote were male landowners.

This situation lasted for centuries but by the 19th century, ordinary people began to demand inclusion. In 1819, for instance, amid desperate economic conditions, local people gathered to demonstrate in Manchester.

Fear by the British authorities of potentially revolutionary forces as seen across the Channel in France resulted in the government cracking down on the gathering.

However, this watershed event did trigger reform. In 1832, the Great Reform Act was enacted in order to accommodate the middle-class voice in politics. Still, the working class struggled for enfranchisement. Only after the end of World War I in 1918 was universal suffrage introduced in the UK, which at that time was the world’s superpower.

The United States went through a similar experience. In its early years, there was no universal suffrage in the US. Only white male landowners were allowed to vote. In 1856, the franchise was extended to include all white men. Ridiculously, native Indians were turned down for voting, because they legally didn’t include the citizen.

African-Americans were given the right to vote in 1870, although many were hampered by a poll tax and literacy test. Women were only given the right to vote in 1920.

The long journey to universal suffrage in most advanced countries reminds us of our so-called “Asian values”. Lee Kuan Yew said successful democracy required “an interested and vigilant electorate” and “the ablest, toughest and most dedicated of leaders”.

* * * * *

Malaysia election a lesson for Indonesian parties

@ The Jakarta Post and @ Malaysia Insider

In the run-up to Malaysia’s general election on May 5, the Malaysian people have been offered two discerning choices. Either they let the National Front (BN) continue to govern for the next five years or they provide the opportunity for the opposition, People’s Alliance (Pakatan Rakyat), to take the helm. The voters know that if BN wins the election, Najib Razak will remain prime minister but if the opposition prevails, then former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim will secure the top job.

Bang Haji: An Unfiltered President?

@The Jakarta Post

Many people ridicule Rhoma Irama (Bang Haji) for his presidential candidacy. Bang Haji is deemed to have no skill or capacity or experience to be a president. His polygamist life also makes things worse.

But is it true that someone like Bang Haji could not lead Indonesia well?

Indonesia Must Buy Iranian Oil

Published on 26/3/2012 @ Jakarta Post http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/03/26/imo-view-indonesia-must-buy-iranian-oil.html

Indonesia’s fuel price hike seems inevitable. The price follows the world’s oil price that steps up due partly to the rising tension between US, its allies and the world’s second largest oil exporter, Iran. Bizarrely, US with thousands of state-of-the-art nukes and Israel with about hundreds of nukes are afraid with the development of Iranian maybe-first-generation-nukes. They try shamelessly to stifle the Iranian economy by barring the Iranian oil export as the main source of Iranian economy.

Lipstik Demokrasi

Demokrasi di Amerika Serikat (AS) sangat memukau. Banyak pelajaran berharga yang bisa didapat. Tapi – dengan kondisi negara yang jauh berbeda – tepatkah demokrasi ala AS ini diterapkan di Indonesia?

Amerika Serikat (AS) benar-benar luar biasa. Pemilu di negara pakar demokrasi itu mendapat liputan luas di seluruh dunia. Apalagi hasil pemilu mencengangkan orang. Obama sebagai keturunan kulit hitam, mempunyai ayah dari negara lain, berhasil menjadi presiden. Batasan ras dalam demokrasi di sana telah berhasil dirobohkan. Kemenangan ini menjadi inspirasi bangsa di seluruh dunia untuk sebuah penegasan demokrasi adalah sistem terbaik yang membuat semua manusia setara.

Pelaksanaan demokrasi di negara Paman Sam itu sangat berharga untuk dipelajari. Selain kesetaraan, beberapa pelajaran lain yang bisa adalah: 1. sportivitas, 2. proses yang teratur dan stabil.

Sportivitas ditunjukkan dengan betapa elegannya mereka dalam berdebat. Debat sepanas apapun tetap membuat kandidat-kandidat itu mampu menahan diri. Dan sportivitas tertinggi yang ditunjukkan adalah ketika pihak yang kalah, langsung memberikan dukungan terhadap pihak yang menang. Para calon itu terlihat sangat bisa menerima kekalahan betapapun pahitnya kekalahan.

Proses pemilihan presiden di AS juga sangat memukau. Para calon diseleksi dari awal tidak hanya oleh partai, tapi juga oleh pers. Calon yang tidak sempurna pasti sudah tersingkir sejak awal. Para calon itu disaring oleh partainya melalui konvensi. Proses mencari dukungan dalam partai ini sangat panjang yang meliputi seluruh negara bagian. Sampai akhirnya pemenang proses masing-masing partai ini bertarung dalam pemilu nasional.

Semua proses ini begitu teratur, jelas dan memukau. Untuk proses konvensi ini saja seluruh dunia sudah mengadakan liputan yang luas. Bangsa AS begitu pandai memoles proses penting ini menjadi tontonan yang menghibur.

***
Tapi yang terpenting adalah bagaimana pengaruh proses pemilu di AS ini terhadap pelaksanaan demokrasi di Indoensia. Tentu bangsa Indonesia jadi sangat terinspirasi.

Usia Obama yang relatif mudah telah lama menginspirasi tokoh muda di Indonesia. Banyak tokoh-tokoh muda mematut-matutkan diri supaya bisa menjadi kandidat presiden seperti Obama. Iklan kampanye oleh partai politik maupun tokoh yang ingin jadi presiden telah lama beredar di TV.

Masalahnya apakah semua ini tepat dengan kebutuhan bangsa Indonesia? Apakah demokrasi yang penuh lipstik ini cocok dengan kebutuhan Indonesia? Apakah kita saat ini butuh tokoh seperti penyair yang memukau massa?

Bangsa AS telah berada dalam kondisi yang relatif stabil, sehingga boleh dikatakan siapapun jadi presiden AS tidak akan berpengaruh banyak. Masalah bangsa AS bukan lagi pada sistem kenegaraan, proses demokrasi dan kematangan politikus. Mereka telah melewati semua hal mendasar itu.

Sementara bangsa Indonesia sebaliknya. Sistem pemerintahan kita masih tidak jelas apakah presidensial, apakah parlementer? Kalau presidensial, mengapa presiden harus perlu melakukan koalisi. Bentuk negara kita masih belum jelas apakah negara kesatuan ataukah federal? Kalau negara persatuan, mengapa gubernur dipilih secara langsung yang mirip sistem federal? Belum lagi politikus kita belum mencapai kematangan, sampai para mantan presiden itu tak bertegur sapa satu sama lain.

Dengan semua kondisi ini, kita belum pantas beranjak ke level berikutnya, yaitu demokrasi yang mengandalkan karisma, pidato yang memukau dan iklan politik. Semua ini bisa membuat bangsa Indonesia akan semakin jauh dari sasaran.

Lihatkah sejarah bangsa Indonesia. Bandingkan Bung Karno dan Pak Harto.

Bung Karno memukau, penuh karisma dan mampu memberikan inspirasi. Tapi kebutuhan bangsa Indonesia saat baru merdeka itu adalah membangun sistem, baik politik maupun ekonomi. Negara hanya dibangun berdasarkan retorika, bukan kerja keras. Itulah sebabnya kondisi Indonesia begitu bobrok dan bangkrut di jaman Bung Karno.

Pak Harto kebalikan dari Bung Karno. Pak Harto relatif tak pandai pidato. Orangnya tenang, datar dan hampir tanpa pesona lahiriah. Tapi Pak Harto adalah administrator ulung. Pak Harto bisa memilih teknokrat-teknokrat terbaik di Indonesia. Hasilnya Indonesia bisa membangun, pertumbuhan ekonomi tinggi, keadaan negara stabil.

***
Kepada bangsa AS kita belajar demokrasi. Tapi penerapan demokrasi harus disesuaikan dengan kebutuhan Indonesia. Dan saat ini bangsa Indonesia lebih membutuhkan pemimpin yang juga administrator ulung daripada sekedar ahli pidato. Kita harus lebih fokus pada perbaikan sistem, daripada fokus pada gebyar hura-hura demokrasi.

*****