After Indonesia election, new crop of leaders in focus for 2024 vote

[Indos]

April 21, 2019 / 1:58 PM

JAKARTA (Reuters) - Even with Indonesia’s current presidential election result still to be officially confirmed, attention is turning to the next race for the top job in 2024 with some rising political stars and well-connected figures in the frame.

FILE PHOTO: A man holds a Koran as Jakarta Governor Anies Baswedan stands during a swearing-in ceremony at the Presidential Palace in Jakarta, Indonesia, October 16, 2017. REUTERS/Beawiharta/File Photo

Sample vote counts by private pollsters from last week’s poll show that incumbent President Joko Widodo is headed for a second and final term in office though the results are being disputed by his challenger, ex-general Prabowo Subianto.

There are, however, a string of new leaders waiting in the wings for their chance including some who, like Widodo, cut their teeth running cities or provinces across the archipelago, and also the offspring of ex-leaders being groomed to take over.

Advertisement

Still, a candidate needs at least 20 percent of seats in parliament or 25 percent of the popular vote to stand, meaning it is conceivable for this year’s challenger Subianto, who is chairman of the Gerindra party, to run for a third attempt.

“We have a lot of potential leaders... The threshold should be lowered to give these people an open opportunity,” said Arya Fernandes, a researcher at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

Here are some of the possible contenders for the 2024 vote.

Advertisement

Anies Baswedan, 49, is the governor of Jakarta. The former education minister, with backing from opposition parties and some hardline Islamist groups, defeated the popular ethnic-Chinese, Christian governor of the capital in a vote marred by religious tensions. Still, the Fulbright Scholar who comes from a family of moderate Muslim scholars is seen as appealing to younger voters and representing a more modern face of Islam.

Sandiaga Uno, 49, was elected vice governor of Jakarta in 2017, but stood down to be the vice presidential running mate for Prabowo. His private equity fortune made to a large degree with investments in Indonesia’s coal industry helped fund Prabowo and his campaign. Though a relative newcomer to politics, the campaign has allowed him to raise his profile across Indonesia and he proved a hit with millennial and female voters.

Ridwan Kamil, 47, is governor of Indonesia’s most populous province West Java and an ally of Widodo. A trained architect, he was previously mayor of Bandung where he is credited with rebranding the city to encourage creativity and use of technology. He has successfully used social media to connect with voters and has more than 10 million followers on Instagram.

Puan Maharani, 45, is a minister for human development and cultural affairs. She has political pedigree as the daughter of former president Megawati Soekarnoputri and granddaughter of Indonesia’s charismatic first leader, Sukarno. Her mother chairs the biggest party in parliament, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), which is in the ruling coalition.

Agus Harimurti Yudhoyono, 40, is the eldest son of former president and Democratic Party chairman Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. The Harvard-educated politician followed his father by having a military career and despite his inexperience ran in the Jakarta governor race in 2017 where he lost in the first round. The Democratic Party has also not fared so well this year.

Other names being circulated by pollsters or the media include regional leaders such as Ganjar Pranowo, 50, the governor of Central Java, Tri Rismaharini, 57, mayor of Surabaya, and East Java governor Khofifah Indar Parawansa, 53.

In eastern Indonesia, Nurdin Abdullah, 56, the South Sulawesi governor, is also seen as a contender.

Deputy parliament speaker and vice chairman of the Gerindra party Fadli Zon, 47, is also seen as a possible candidate as a Prabowo loyalist.

Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, 52, the ex-governor of Jakarta, still has many supporters if he did try to get back into politics even with a blasphemy conviction for insulting the Koran.

Billionaire businessman Erick Thohir, 48, who orchestrated last year’s Asian Games and Widodo’s 2019 presidential campaign, has also been mentioned though he has denied interest in a political career and up to now lacks governance experience.

Reporting by Tabita Diela and Yerica Lai; Writing by Ed Davies; Editing by Christopher Cushing

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-leaders-in-focus-for-2024-vote-idUSKCN1RX05K

 

[vi-va]

IMO, not a good sign.

 

[Indos]

IMO, not a good sign.

Why ? Please elaborate more....

If you refer to the possibility of Anies Baswedan who is backed by hard line Islamist group will win the election as not a good sign, I think you are false. I dont think there will be any major change on Indonesia whether it is lead by Islamist or Nationalist. The thing that is not yet known is the candidate program on economy, defense, research, foreign policy and so on.

I think Today Indonesia politics is more on program rather than division between Islamist and Nationalist, because both Islamist and Nationalist candidate understand deeply that in order to win an election they need to go to the center. Jokowi for instant as Nationalist leader pick a conservative Muslim leader as his running mate and try very hard to look more Islam as he can. And there are also nationalist parties who are more comfortable to make an alliance with Islamist party than with other nationalist.

Before Jokowi comes to power, Indonesia for instant was lead by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) whose party is Democrat and he get supported by Islamic parties. So the division between Islamist and Nationalist in Indonesia is not too tick just like happening during Egypt democracy rule.

The thing that I think will be different is foreign policy, even though both Islamist and Nationalist candidate will still back Palestinian struggle and contribute positively in OIC but Islamist leader IMO will be more sensitive to Islam matter and cause.

 

[Nike]

Why ? Please elaborate more....

If you refer to the possibility of Anies Baswedan who is backed by hard line Islamist group will win the election as not a good sign, I think you are false. I dont think there will be any major change on Indonesia whether it is lead by Islamist or Nationalist. The thing that is not yet known is the candidate program on economy, defense, research, foreign policy and so on.

I think Today Indonesia politics is more on program rather than division between Islamist and Nationalist, because both Islamist and Nationalist candidate understand deeply that in order to win an election they need to go to the center. Jokowi for instant as Nationalist leader pick a conservative Muslim leader as his running mate and try very hard to look more Islam as he can. And there are also nationalist parties who are more comfortable to make an alliance with Islamist party than with other nationalist.

Before Jokowi comes to power, Indonesia for instant was lead by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) whose party is Democrat and he get supported by Islamic parties. So the division between Islamist and Nationalist in Indonesia is not too tick just like happening during Egypt democracy rule.

The thing that I think will be different is foreign policy, even though both Islamist and Nationalist candidate will still back Palestinian struggle and contribute positively in OIC but Islamist leader IMO will be more sensitive to Islam matter and cause.

Cut the bull about islam and Palestina in government, dont need that

 

[vi-va]

Democracy is the best fertilizer for extreme ideology. I am not talking about islam. I am talking about ideology in general.

In modern politics science, far left and far right always attract people's attention, that's because of new media and human nature.

Only those societies who can control populism can overcome human nature defects, such as China, Vietnam and Japan.

Once democracy open the gate of populism, there is no way to close the door, maybe revolution can temporary divert the direction.

 

[lcloo]

It is truly not a good sign. A true politician who really cares for the people should not put the next election as top priority. Whether he/she is in government or in opposition, the first top priority is the people, not the voters but all the people young and old living in the country.

Politicians chasing for top government positions rather than the opportunity to serve the people and make their lives better are opportunist. A true statesman cares and works hard for the people but they are rare these days, not just in Indonesia but all over the world.

 

[Viva_Viet]

Democracy is the best fertilizer for extreme ideology. I am not talking about islam. I am talking about ideology in general.

In modern politics science, far left and far right always attract people's attention, that's because of new media and human nature.

Only those societies who can control populism can overcome human nature defects, such as China, Vietnam and Japan.

Once democracy open the gate of populism, there is no way to close the door, maybe revolution can temporary divert the direction.

Capitalism contained the seeds of its own destruction. Karl Marx.

Its a waste of time talking abt capitalist nations now. Just look at the collapse of Deusche bank and we all know Marx, a German patriot, is right

 

[vi-va]

Capitalism contained the seeds of its own destruction. Karl Marx.

Its a waste of time talking abt capitalist nations now. Just look at the collapse of Deusche bank and we all know Marx, a German patriot, is right

Every ideology contains the seeds of its own destruction - viva_zhao

Karl Marx wrote above comments on capitalism when capitalism is in the early stage which is the cruelest and bloody.

Vietnam and China political system can work with culture which Confucianism influenced. and also because Vietnam and China born in the war, not like East European countries, which were given by USSR. East European collapsed easily, they never fight hard for their political system.

​

 

[Indos]

Democracy is the best fertilizer for extreme ideology. I am not talking about islam. I am talking about ideology in general.

In modern politics science, far left and far right always attract people's attention, that's because of new media and human nature.

Only those societies who can control populism can overcome human nature defects, such as China, Vietnam and Japan.

Once democracy open the gate of populism, there is no way to close the door, maybe revolution can temporary divert the direction.

Democracy maybe can create a bad leader but within a democracy itself there are many tools that can prevent any bad leaders from taking a really bad action. There is opposition force in democracy and there is rule of law and there is constitutional court that can impeach a President if he violate constitutions. People are free to criticize leader. There is freedom of press, demonstration that is protected by law, etc. The power is also limited only for 5 years and there will be election after that and some democracy also give limitation to how long a person can stay in power. Indonesia for instant only allow candidate to win no more than 2 election. This condition is not exist in authoritarian regime.

Of course democracy needs a wise, mature, and rational populace thats why I think democracy is not for every country. Any society that is not mature and dont follow rule of game will get dead lock democracy where leaders are replaced too quick or have opposition who doesnt let the election winner to rule. Condition like happening in Thailand and Egypt are the example of such society, thats why military get upper hand there to make a coup and eliminate or limit their democracy.

Those rational and mature society is also needed in democracy so that it can prevent any candidate who use populism idea to win an election. In Indonesia, alhamdulillah we can do that, thats why candidate (Prabowo) who promises the people with a lot of subsidy, low tax, and higher wage doesnt win, because people know that it is bad for the country for the long term.

 

[vi-va]

Democracy maybe can create a bad leader but within a democracy itself there are many tools that can prevent any bad leaders from taking a really bad action. There is opposition force in democracy and there is rule of law and there is constitutional court that can impeach a President if he violate constitutions. People are free to criticize leader. There is freedom of press, demonstration that is protected by law, etc. The power is also limited only for 5 years and there will be election after that and some democracy also give limitation to how long a person can stay in power. Indonesia for instant only allow candidate to win no more than 2 election. This condition is not exist in authoritarian regime.

Of course democracy needs a wise, mature, and rational populace thats why I think democracy is not for every country. Any society that is not mature and dont follow rule of game will get dead lock democracy where leaders are replaced too quick or have opposition who doesnt let the election winner to rule. Condition like happening in Thailand and Egypt are the example of such society, thats why military get upper hand there to make a coup and eliminate or limit their democracy.

Those rational and mature society is also needed in democracy so that it can prevent any candidate who use populism idea to win an election. In Indonesia, alhamdulillah we can do that, thats why candidate (Prabowo) who promises the people with a lot of subsidy, low tax, and higher wage doesnt win, because people know that it is bad for the country for the long term.

Democracy =/= western democracy =/= US democracy.

IMO, US democracy is the worst form of democracy. The US founders will strongly disagree current US democracy practice if you have ever read The Federalist Papers

What US and west in general political system right now is Moneyocracy. It's almost impossible to get rid of money influence if you combine capitalism and western democracy together. Once you get on that train, you have no chance to get out of it.

US Tripartite System, the separation of political power among a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary looks very good. It was designed by US founders with idealism. It's not something evolved naturally in human history, it's was born in a very special environment which is Free North America.

What I mean Free North America is:
1, Completely genocide native American Indians. You get a land without historical disputes, without race divergence, without language divergence, without regional conflicts, without religion conflicts.
2, Full fill this land with labors from Europe, which has been civilized for thousands of years.
3, Unlimited natural resource comparing with the total population during industrialization. Especially oil, coal, iron, water.
4, Isolated environment and protected by 2 oceans

In such a special environment, they made US constitution, Tripartite System. With European citizens which were civilized for thousands of years, they apply Rule of Law on this continent.

What you got in Indonesia?

 

[Brainsucker]

Democracy =/= western democracy =/= US democracy.

IMO, US democracy is the worst form of democracy. The US founders will strongly disagree current US democracy practice if you have ever read The Federalist Papers

What US and west in general political system right now is Moneyocracy. It's almost impossible to get rid of money influence if you combine capitalism and western democracy together. Once you get on that train, you have no chance to get out of it.

US Tripartite System, the separation of political power among a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary looks very good. It was designed by US founders with idealism. It's not something evolved naturally in human history, it's was born in a very special environment which is Free North America.

What I mean Free North America is:
1, Completely genocide native American Indians. You get a land without historical disputes, without race divergence, without language divergence, without regional conflicts, without religion conflicts.
2, Full fill this land with labors from Europe, which has been civilized for thousands of years.
3, Unlimited natural resource comparing with the total population during industrialization. Especially oil, coal, iron, water.
4, Isolated environment and protected by 2 oceans

In such a special environment, they made US constitution, Tripartite System. With European citizens which were civilized for thousands of years, they apply Rule of Law on this continent.

What you got in Indonesia?

but our democracy is different from the western country. Democracy is actually not our ideology. We are not capitalism. But we are also not theocracy, nor socialism. Our ideology is Pancasila. The middle between socialism and capitalism. In Pancasila, we are at the middle. At the balance between all ideology in the world.

the purpose of democracy, in our country is only to choose our leader. Of course, it's not perfect. Because in democracy environment, popular leader (not the capable leader) tend to win the election. But at least it is better then our previous political method. If you ask about China current political system; don't worry. We have went through that kind of system before. in Soeharto New Order. In that era, we knew about 5 years plan, etc that used by Communism and socialism development system. It had it good perk. But that kind of system gave birth to massive corruption in our government officials. Added with Soeharto 30 years of ruling, the people felt enough is enough. So we chose to reform our political system with democracy.

To be honest, I still think that US tripartite system is better than the system that China use today. Because that system is useful to limit one person political power in our country. At least, we don't give our president an unlimited power like a king / emperor. But it doesn't mean that China political system doesn't work. It just not fit to our need.

 

[vi-va]

but our democracy is different from the western country. Democracy is actually not our ideology. We are not capitalism. But we are also not theocracy, nor socialism. Our ideology is Pancasila. The middle between socialism and capitalism. In Pancasila, we are at the middle. At the balance between all ideology in the world.

the purpose of democracy, in our country is only to choose our leader. Of course, it's not perfect. Because in democracy environment, popular leader (not the capable leader) tend to win the election. But at least it is better then our previous political method. If you ask about China current political system; don't worry. We have went through that kind of system before. in Soeharto New Order. In that era, we knew about 5 years plan, etc that used by Communism and socialism development system. It had it good perk. But that kind of system gave birth to massive corruption in our government officials. Added with Soeharto 30 years of ruling, the people felt enough is enough. So we chose to reform our political system with democracy.

To be honest, I still think that US tripartite system is better than the system that China use today. Because that system is useful to limit one person political power in our country. At least, we don't give our president an unlimited power like a king / emperor. But it doesn't mean that China political system doesn't work. It just not fit to our need.

The democracy ideology was initially invented in small city like Athens. UK Great Charter limited the power of King by parliament and introduced Rule of Law. US introduced tripartite system which distributed the power further.

From historical perspective, it's progressive. Better than Kingdom of course.

But regarding social development and stability for developing countries, it might lead to disaster. The tripartite system was designed to limited the power of President/Prime Minister. The check and balance mechanism use certain process to make sure it works within the law. All seems very good and reassuring.

But who limit the power and viciousness of media and people?

The tripartite system provide a perfect platform for party struggle. The medias have been weaponized and play a key role to add fuel to the fire. Money is so important in modern elections that politicians bow to tycoons. The party struggle is not only between parties, but also incite their voters and fight with each other.

In old days, the medias are more or less controlled or influenced by the country. Nowadays, new media dominate the market, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Reddit, and many others. All those new medias are controlled by multinational corporations, especially US corporations.

As a country like Indonesia which control Strait of Malacca, has no chance stay out of US-China confrontation. US will try their best to manipulate your elections and the popular will. China will try to make sure Indonesia stay neutral. Both countries will not hesitate to use carrot and stick.

On your north, China is gradually dominating South China Sea. On you south, US and Australia are strengthening their military capability, refurbishing navy base such as Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island.

With current political system, how to survive?

 

[Viva_Viet]

The democracy ideology was initially invented in small city like Athens. UK Great Charter limited the power of King by parliament and introduced Rule of Law. US introduced tripartite system which distributed the power further.

From historical perspective, it's progressive. Better than Kingdom of course.

But regarding social development and stability for developing countries, it might lead to disaster. The tripartite system was designed to limited the power of President/Prime Minister. The check and balance mechanism use certain process to make sure it works within the law. All seems very good and reassuring.

But who limit the power and viciousness of media and people?

The tripartite system provide a perfect platform for party struggle. The medias have been weaponized and play a key role to add fuel to the fire. Money is so important in modern elections that politicians bow to tycoons. The party struggle is not only between parties, but also incite their voters and fight with each other.

In old days, the medias are more or less controlled or influenced by the country. Nowadays, new media dominate the market, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Reddit, and many others. All those new medias are controlled by multinational corporations, especially US corporations.

As a country like Indonesia which control Strait of Malacca, has no chance stay out of US-China confrontation. US will try their best to manipulate your elections and the popular will. China will try to make sure Indonesia stay neutral. Both countries will not hesitate to use carrot and stick.

On your north, China is gradually dominating South China Sea. On you south, US and Australia are strengthening their military capability, refurbishing navy base such as Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island.

With current political system, how to survive?

First: stop posting fake news ( China is gradually dominating SCS( east VN sea) CN only control 10-12%, same % wt MY,PH while VN control 60-65%.

Sec, U say :" Indonesia which control Strait of Malacca" , then now pls explain why only ID control Malacca st?? What is the meaning of "control" in this sentence ?

 

[vi-va]

First: stop posting fake news ( China is gradually dominating SCS( east VN sea) CN only control 10-12%, same % wt MY,PH while VN control 60-65%.

Sec, U say :" Indonesia which control Strait of Malacca" , then now pls explain why only ID control Malacca st?? What is the meaning of "control" in this sentence ?

Control is not very accurate, I mean big influence. Basically only the strongest air force/navy control the sea.

In most cases, US control the Straits. https://www.wowshack.com/choke-point-malacca-straits/

In South China Sea, north of latitude of 12, China dominate by land base air force. South of latitude of 12, China and US share the power, no one dominate for now I think.

Vietnam don't have a meaningful navy comparing with China and US. Vietnam and many other countries can only dominate limited sea area along their coast.

In Malacca Strait case, US>Indonesia>China>Singapore>Malaysia for now. Once China 2 new Carrier Strike Groups are ready, China can make sure at least 2 Carrier Strike Groups are available anytime, then US>China>Indonesia>Singapore>Malaysia. Once H-20 are ready, China>US>Indonesia>Singapore>Malaysia.

@Viva_Viet, no one asked your opinion. I can't make argument with those who don't know basic military knowledge.

 

[Viva_Viet]

Control is not very accurate, I mean big influence. Basically only the strongest air force/navy control the sea.

In most cases, US control the Straits. https://www.wowshack.com/choke-point-malacca-straits/

In South China Sea, north of latitude of 12, China dominate by land base air force. South of latitude of 12, China and US share the power, no one dominate for now I think.

Vietnam don't have a meaningful navy comparing with China and US. Vietnam and many other countries can only dominate limited sea area along their coast.

In Malacca Strait case, US>Indonesia>China>Singapore>Malaysia for now. Once China 2 new Carrier Strike Groups are ready, China can make sure at least 2 Carrier Strike Groups are available anytime, then US>China>Indonesia>Singapore>Malaysia. Once H-20 are ready, China>US>Indonesia>Singapore>Malaysia.

@Viva_Viet, no one asked your opinion. I can't make argument with those who don't know basic military knowledge.

Then stop posting fake news. CN only control 10-12%.

CN dominate Nothing, u cant even place oil rig in the disputed zone and the world saw CN warships had to retreat shamefully in 2014 conflict.

Btw, did 2014 conflict happen in north of latitude of 12 ??