The Indonesian presidential cult – beragampengetahuan – Beragampengetahuan

Indonesia’s 5th president Megawati Soekarnoputri and 2024 presidential candidate Ganjar Pranowo at the inauguration of a statue of Indonesia’s first president Soekarno in Yogyakarta on 23 August. Photo by Andreas Fitri Atmoko for Antara.

In Indonesian history, presidents have been overthrown twice through popular demonstrations – once in 1966, the second in 1998. Both were ‘great presidents’ – the first was Soekarno, the proclaimer of independence, and the second was Soeharto, a “village boy from Kemusuk”, considered by some to be the father of development. Both fell due to authoritarian leadership – Soekarno appointed himself president for life, while Soeharto engineered a system of power that ensured he would win the presidency every five years.

These two historical events remind us how dangerous it is to worship a president. That the president is not some kind of rockstar or talisman to be adored. But even in the current era, most Indonesians – not only the lay people, but also the educated – continue to worship the president as a cult. They love and adore the president as a father figure.

And even though history has often taught us how easily a leader can slip into authoritarianism, the political culture and the way Indonesians view leaders has not changed – and it is this lionising of national leaders that creates the conditions for authoritarian leadership.

The 2024 presidential election has already seen several surprises. Firstly, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, who still has great influence, has supported Prabowo Subianto rather than the presidential candidate from his own party. Secondly, Jokowi’s eldest son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, was appointed as Prabowo’s running mate in controversial circumstances.

For some fans, Jokowi’s political methods have been disappointing, particularly the way he has aligned himself with elites like Prabowo. They now view Jokowi’s motives as dishonorable, particularly the way he has bequeathed so much power to members of his own family.

Since 2014, fans have lauded Jokowi as an authentic politician who worked his way up from the bottom, a ‘decent person’ from outside Jakarta’s disreputable political elite. But in 2024, Jokowi’s alignment with Prabowo is causing a rethink among some of his supporters. For them, this partnership is a betrayal. Although for other backers, Jokowi’s power is too expensive to waste. Instead of acknowledging his failures, they proclaim the birth of ‘Jokowism’.

This situation highlights the irony and contradictions in Indonesia’s democratic culture. On the one hand, Indonesians are cynical about politicians. In every survey, the level of public trust in politicians is lower than other professions. Most Indonesians suspect politicians of corruption and like to repeat the adage that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Yet paradoxically, many Indonesians still speak enthusiastically about presidential candidates. When they are forced to choose – they become one-eyed, especially when their preferred candidate wins. The presidential cult makes people forget that elected officials are – first and foremost – politicians, who are only able to seek office because they have sworn loyalty to a range of political players and interest groups.

Sectarian politics deployed throughout the 2014 and 2019 presidential elections has become a cause of intense political polarisation in Indonesia. But perhaps, the prolonged polarisation and sectarianism also stems from toxic partisanship due to this prevailing presidential cult. Looking at current trends, perhaps Indonesia has arrived at a similar state to the US, where Gene Healy has noted “the modern presidency is now a divider, rather than a uniter. It has become too powerful to be anything else”.

There are several factors we can point to that are sustaining the presidential cult. The first factor is structural, namely the absence of parties built around ideologies or class interests. Nowadays, there are only two types of parties in Indonesia, core parties, like the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) and the Party of Functional Groups (Golkar), and personalistic parties, like the Democrats and Gerindra. These personalistic parties are founded purely to help a particular political figure become president. The democratic tradition of parties championing a particular political ideology or class interest are over. Political parties now function merely as machines for the pursuit of power under the shadow of patronage and oligarchy.

The second factor is cultural, namely the strong feudal traditions which view the palace as the pinnacle of society with the president as god’s messenger, despite only being in that position because of a twist of fate. Third, the legacy of authoritarianism perpetuates the view of the president as a kind of king who is beyond criticism or judgement.

Fourth, idealising the president as the supposed lesser of two evils. Although the lesser evil mechanism is grounded in political realism, it perpetuates the idealisation of the chosen presidential candidate by framing them as a comparatively moral figure, which is often divorced from the political reality.

The last one is the most important – the institutionalisation of Indonesian democracy, particularly through the 20 percent presidential threshold rule, which has allowed the major parties to monopolise presidential recruitment. The 20-percent threshold has become like primordial chains that serve a dual function – it makes the president an untouchable figure, and it ensures the president’s rise is only possible with the intervention of party elites. The ‘lesser evil dilemma’ only occurs because, from the start, people’s options are extremely limited.

As a result, a ‘presidential deficit’ emerges in Indonesia every election which forces parties, especially small and medium parties, to search for backing. As a result, the presidential candidates who emerge are treated as idols that must be held close and fought for tooth and nail. Here everything is a product of politics.

The presidential cult is destroying the character and culture of our civic democracy – but I am not optimistic we will be able to escape it in 2024. What is certain is that if we want to get out of the old culture of autocracy and the presidential cult, if we want to break free from a contrived moral dilemma every five years, we can start by fighting to abolish the presidential threshold rule.

Only then can we elect a president who is truly representative of the people and rid ourselves of these false illusions of greatness.