An Eventful Year for Indonesia

---
An Eventful Year for Indonesia
Yohanes Sulaiman | December 27, 2012

With the new year closing in fast, let’s take a look at some of the most important domestic events hitting headlines this past year, and how they may affect us in the next.

Strength in numbers

The labor union might have legitimate grievances in its decision to blockade the Jakarta-Cikampek toll road last January. But it also set a terrible precedent by making it clear that the best way to force the government to do whatever you want is to cause massive traffic jams. Moreover, the government’s unwillingness to crack down on law-breaking protesters gave a signal to everyone that the government would not arrest anyone as long as they have strength in numbers.

Thus, while street demonstrations are not that uncommon after the fall of the New Order, this year marked a significant increase in the number of huge demonstrations that brought the traffic to a standstill.

The problem, aside of massive economic cost from lost time and gasoline and jittery investors having second thoughts about investing in Indonesia, these huge demonstrations also had an adverse effect of essentially stressing the idea of “might makes right.” Rather than contributing to the creation of stable democratic institutions, these demonstrations make a mockery of the rule of law and proper channels for grievances — the courts and the legislature.

Of course the blame goes both ways. It could be argued that people were forced to hit the streets as the government, the court system and the parliament were notoriously unresponsive to people’s concerns about economic injustices and bad policies, undermining the people’s trust in the first place. It could also be easily argued the government was unable to communicate its policies effectively with the people, making it easy for the provocateurs to whip up public sentiment to the detriment of government policies.

Either way, the toll road blockade marked a complete collapse of public trust in the government and the government’s ineffectual response to the blockade set a bad precedent for years to come.

‘Shock therapy’

The unlikely victory of Joko Widodo and Basuki T. Purnama in the Jakarta gubernatorial election jolted both regular Indonesians and the political elite alike. Apparently a pair of candidates with good track records could beat the establishment candidates backed by the political parties and their money machines.

This campaign also marked the power of the Internet, especially social media, in Indonesian elections. A strong, enthusiastic grassroots support could provide a strong countermeasure to ugly black campaigns that tried to bring up the divisive issues of ethnicity, race and religion.

More importantly, this election also stressed the need for the candidates to maintain self-discipline to win the race. We saw how Nachrowi Ramli self-destructed on national television during the gubernatorial debate. That, in essence, gave the election away to Jokowi-Ahok, despite Fauzi Bowo’s own respectable performance in the debate.

After the election, given the public’s high expectations of the victorious pair, Jokowi-Ahok also perform remarkably well. In spite of some complaints regarding Jokowi’s predilection to travel a lot, visiting Jakarta’s kampongs, and Ahok’s anger management problem, people remain ecstatic as the two manage to show the public that they are working hard to solve Jakarta’s massive problems.

The pair also enjoyed national adoration as Indonesians were supporting their  “shock therapy” — well-deserved public humiliation of what people saw as arrogant and out-of-touch bureaucrats. Not surprisingly, the two are possibly the most popular politicians in Indonesia today, though the sentiment seems not to be shared by many of Jakarta’s local parliamentarians or bureaucrats that are on the receiving edge of the “shock therapy.”

Angelina and the Democrats

Muhammad Nazaruddin’s claims of massive corruption within the ruling Democratic Party was vindicated with the arrest and trial of Angelina Sondakh over the  long-running Southeast Asian Games athletes village bribery scandal.

After the indictment of Angelina, more and more people were implicated in the scandal, including Andi Mallarangeng, the sports and youth affairs minister, who decided to leave both the ministry and the Democratic Party early this month.

While Andi’s guilt is not certain, the indictment of so many parliamentarians and other Democrats has put the party on the defensive. Opinion polls suggest people no longer trust the party’s commitment to eradicate corruption and many will abandon it ahead of the 2014 elections.

With the electoral field wide open, there are possibilities that small parties, especially Prabowo Subianto’s Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra), which already received a significant boost for backing Jokowi-Ahok, could reap the benefits, as people are looking for figures seen as decisive enough to combat massive corruption.

KPK under fire

This year is also marked by a concerted assault on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) — by both lawmakers and the police force. First, the parliament decided to release the draft of the revised KPK law that would significantly curtail some of the KPK’s powers, notably its ability to conduct wiretaps on suspected corruptors and their accomplices and to prosecute corruptors. The draft also called for the creation of a KPK Supervisory Council, whose members were selected by the parliament itself. Many believed that the council would in the end meddle with the KPK’s affairs so much that the commission would be made irrelevant.

Later, the police, angered over a KPK investigation into the driving simulator procurement graft case, attempted to arrest Novel Baswedan, the head of the KPK’s investigation team, over an old, dubious case. When that didn’t work, the police decided to pull their investigators from the KPK, significantly weakening its ability to investigate corruption cases.

The public uproar over this case was such that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was forced to step into the fray to stress his support for the KPK. By staking his reputation on this, however, the embattled president will receive the lion’s share of the blame should the KPK end up emasculated. And that will harm his ability to influence the election to pick his successor in 2014.

---

Normalaatsra

4:06pm Dec 27, 2012

And FPIxMUI are not mentioned.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

5:19pm Dec 27, 2012

...and that stupid sandal trial, etc., etc.,etc. Some of them due to the lack of space. But, the goal of the article is to identify four most important events of 2012 -- and nNothing new about MUI and FPI -- they have caused troubles for years and years already and especially the latter, the government never develops enough backbone to tackle them. Not that they are unimportant, but nothing "new" about them in 2012. That's all.

GlobalCitizen

1:12am Feb 28, 2013

FPI and MUI are nothing but organization of terrorists who promote terrorism. Period! They are hiding behind the religion while actually they tarnish the religion like hell.

On the Campaign Trail, Image Rules

---
On the Campaign Trail, Image Rules
Yohanes Sulaiman | November 13, 2012

"Candidates should cherish controlled dissent, allowing people in the campaign to critically analyze whether their candidate is truly on the path to victory."

The election circus in the United States has come to an end, but that in Indonesia — which will have its own presidential poll in less than two years — is only just beginning. The field here remains wide open, with many surveys indicating that the majority of voters still don’t know any of the possible the candidates well — let alone would be able to decide whom to vote for. But for Indonesian presidential aspirants there are important lessons to be learnt from the US presidential election.

Lesson No. 1 is that money — although always nice to have — cannot buy everything if competitors also have plenty of it. As the Republicans found out, regardless of all the talk of their donors willingly donating millions of dollars through political action committees to defeat President Barack Obama, the Democrats in the end managed to match the massive Republican war chest.

While money is still important, because you need it to build a campaigning infrastructure and for political advertising, with the cash-stalemate going on, the next election in Indonesia will be fought down in the trenches.

Candidates’ personal rapport with regular Indonesians, effective use of social media to spread campaign messages, generating voter turnout and enthusiasm, and political messaging will be crucial. Here Obama’s campaign performed much better than Mitt Romney’s. The Obama campaign convinced enough people to cast their votes, which allowed them to win the election.

Given that all the presumptive candidates in the next Indonesian election have deep pockets or at least are backed by generous billionaires, it is simply impossible that any particular candidate will be able to dominate the airwaves. Vote-buying will be difficult too, because there will be other bidders, which causes prices to rise.

As the recent Jakarta gubernatorial election shows, even though Governor Fauzi Bowo had seven times more money in his war chest than his challenger Joko Widodo, in the end Jokowi emerged the winner simply because Jokowi could generate more enthusiasm.

This brings us to lesson No. 2, which is to define yourself and your opponents as soon as possible. As Romney painfully found out, once Obama and his supporters managed to define him as an uncaring billionaire born with a silver spoon in his mouth, it was very difficult to overcome such a caricature. Each misstep was then used to reinforce the image of an out-of-touch political opportunist.

In the meantime, Romney was also unable to answer to Obama’s negative campaign messages and to sell himself to make the voters think they did know him, which would make them more passionate in supporting him. While Romney’s superior performance in his first debate managed to create some momentum, it could not defeat months of bad news and negative campaigns. So in the end, he lost.

With the majority of the voters in the next Indonesian presidential election being, at least until now, undecided and unfamiliar with the candidates, it is imperative that they quickly define and sell themselves to the voters and try to address any perceived weaknesses. Candidates should not assume that, for instance, by simply wearing Jokowi’s checkered shirt they could emulate Jokowi’s success. Jokowi had his own accomplishments as mayor of Solo to boast and he built upon it an image of a competent reformer and Mr. Fix-it-all, which led to outright Jokowi-mania.

Candidates clearly have to educate voters about their accomplishments, their plans, and their familiarity with the important issues. But more importantly, they need to be prepared and maintain discipline to prevent gaffes that could be used to sink their campaigns.

Candidates therefore should not surround themselves with yes-men and pollsters only interested in keeping their clients happy and keeping their contracts. That is one of the main reasons why Romney’s campaign crashed and burned. With the campaign insulated from bad news and aides unwilling to strongly challenge what they thought were bad decisions, it could not react and take quick and decisive action to prevent damage from spreading.

Candidates should cherish controlled dissent, allowing people in the campaign to critically analyze whether their candidate is truly on the path to victory. Without dissent, any campaign is doomed.

With Jakartans’ Great Expectations to Manage, Jokowi and Ahok Start Off on the Right Feet

---
With Jakartans’ Great Expectations to Manage, Jokowi and Ahok Start Off on the Right Feet
Yohanes Sulaiman | October 24, 2012

Last week, the new gubernatorial duo of Joko Widodo and Basuki Tjahaja Purnama were finally sworn in. After their success at the ballot box, they now must tackle one very important problem: managing the incredibly high expectations about their ability to solve Jakarta’s myriad problems.

With such high expectations about traffic, flooding and social ills, both voters and political opponents of the pair, better known as Jokowi and Ahok, are demanding quick, palpable results.

Voters are fickle and easily disappointed, especially when they think they voted for a miracle worker.

Political opponents, however, see the pair as a threat both to their personal ambitions and to their parties. Both Jokowi and Ahok’s success could be touted by their backers — the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) and the Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra) — as proof that they are the only ones with competent administrators. This would obviously be a boon in the upcoming 2014 elections.

An inability to live up to the promises of the Jokowi-Ahok campaign would be seized upon by their political opponents to show that they were all talk and no action, and could even be used to ridicule both the PDI-P and Gerindra. Already Amien Rais, the co-founder of the National Mandate Party (PAN), has declared that Jokowi should be seen as a failure if he is unable to solve Jakarta’s traffic jams, social disorder and flooding within 100 days. In truth, nobody in their right mind would consider that even remotely possible.

The biggest task on hand at this point for Jokowi and Ahok is how to deal with these high expectations while at the same time buying enough time to deliver some real results before serious criticism — fair or not — starts to pile in.

So far, they have been pushing the right buttons. Jokowi has embarked on a kampung-hopping junket, visiting various areas of Jakarta and at the same time experiencing Jakarta’s famous, massive traffic jams. Jokowi’s willingness to actually experience the congestion offers a welcome contrast to elected leaders all over Indonesia who prefer motorcades, flanked by patrolmen whose sole duty is to clear the way for public officials unwilling to get stuck in the traffic.

Ahok, in the meantime, has been tackling Jakarta’s bureaucracy, launching surprise inspections and coming up with the idea of putting CCTVs in government offices in order to improve accountability.

While critics might argue that this is all show, smoke and mirrors, at least the pair have been using the public scrutiny effectively. They have managed to create the image that they are trying to understand the problems facing Jakarta and experiencing those problems firsthand.

More importantly, they are pushing for transparency. Unlike other politicians, they seem to actually welcome much scrutiny, hoping that the press will cover them at all times. By doing this, they are hoping to create an aura of accountability so the citizens of Jakarta will see them as trying to govern well.

Even though it will take a while before the massive problems facing Jakarta can be fixed, at least people see that their leaders are trying to do something, validating the trust of the voters that they tirelessly courted during the gubernatorial campaign.

In contrast to Jokowi, the Household Affairs Committee (BURT) is moving the other way with its new plans for the regulation of news coverage at the House of Representatives. Instead of increasing transparency, the BURT is trying to limit journalists’ ability to cover meetings. For instance, journalists would not be able to freely take photographs during meetings. Among other transparency-related concerns, this would minimize the possibility of journalists catching legislators watching pornography on their tablet computers, which happened to Arifinto from the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) last year.

Politicians should take notice: Transparency and accountability can be used as political capital. Many politicians in general avoid media scrutiny — by limiting transparency and accountability — because they believe that journalists will only cover their missteps and thus harm their political ambitions. However, if they would actually try to govern well, they would find that all this press scrutiny can also be used to prove that they are actually doing something worthwhile.
---

TheSplodge

8:55am Oct 24, 2012

"Amien Rais, the co-founder of the National Mandate Party (PAN), has declared that Jokowi should be seen as a failure if he is unable to solve Jakarta's traffic jams, social disorder and flooding within 100 days."

Yeah right. PAN has been around since 1998 and what has Rais or his party achieved in 14 years, let alone 100 days.


an2

9:52am Oct 24, 2012

Amien Rais is a complete nut. He and the party he funded have NOT contributed anything toward progress of Indonesia. To expect the new governor to solve 60+ years of mismanagement in 100 days just shows that his brain has been zapped...

Serigala-Berbulu-Domba

9:53am Oct 24, 2012

Amien Rais has always been an extremely arrogant individual, great at braying like a donkey, however his accomplishments are best demonstrated by PAN, the party he co-founded - what a bunch of total losers.

Asoegenie

10:50am Oct 25, 2012

Amien Rais, by saying that Jokowi should be seen as a failure if he is unable to solve Jakarta’s traffic jams, social disorder and flooding within 100 days, you show how small-minded you really are. You're just jealous of Jokowi. What has your party really done for the Indonesian people? Nothing, Nada! You should be ashamed of yourself.

menado

12:18pm Oct 25, 2012

dear Jokowi please do abandon the motorcades (Weeooweeoo) here and let the politicians who do nothing but screwing everyone around enjoy the Jakarta traffic.

Roland

12:38pm Oct 25, 2012

I agree with other comments here - Amien Rais' comment shows a complete lack of respect, drips from envy and does sound incredibly arrogant.

Everybody in its right mind understands that the traffic problem cannot be solved within 100 days - gestures can be made, priorities set but that's about it.

If Rais' party is part of the city council I would like to see on how they actually support Jokowi. That should have been priority and not calling people beforehand potential losers. Quite a disturbing person anyhow...Amien Rais I mean...

jchay

2:08pm Oct 25, 2012

Amien Rais is an old fart, let the stinky smell be gone and Jakartans should move on progress with life!

Let us all Jakartans continue to support Jokowi-Ahok's management way of BTP (Bersih Transparan Professional).

Valkyrie

4:38pm Oct 25, 2012

o Amien Rais:

You are a total disappointment!

Arkmahinda

6:14pm Oct 25, 2012

 
"Politicians should take notice: Transparency and accountability can be used as political capital. Many politicians in general avoid media scrutiny — by limiting transparency and accountability — because they believe that journalists will only cover their missteps and thus harm their political ambitions."

This suggests that state officials are not willing to govern this nation in an orderly manner.

Their fear of media coverage shows that they are honestly saying "we are up to no good, look away,"

Another loss to the House. Please your majesty honorable representatives of the people, show us that you are worth it.

NavoShant

6:24pm Oct 25, 2012

Amien Rais' comment: a loser's INSECURITY n ARROGANCE. At least Jokowi Ahok has been trying, they plan n takes one step at a time, unlike some failed ex-president corrupting from the whole country.

not even an ex-president, but president wanna-be

maspanji

9:14am Oct 26, 2012

Amien Rais should go back to sleep ( that is what he is been doing all the time and always misses the train ).

Media Can Sway Public Opinion, But Not as Effectively as an Underperforming Party

---
Media Can Sway Public Opinion, But Not as Effectively as an Underperforming Party
Yohanes Sulaiman | June 22, 2012

If anyone was wondering why President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono seemed frustrated in his speech during the Democratic Party convention last week, the results of a pair of recent surveys from the Soegeng Sarjadi Syndicate and the Indonesian Survey Circle should help.

Both surveys showed that the Democratic Party’s popularity was declining rapidly. The Indonesian Survey Circle (LSI) noted that support for the Democratic Party had dropped from 13.7 percent in January to 11.3 percent, while the SSS put the Democratic Party’s support at 10.7 percent.

Both surveys ominously predicted that the Democratic Party would become nothing more than another middle-tier party, should the trend continue.

Previously, Yudhoyono acknowledged that the Democratic Party’s popularity had taken a major hit. However, he blamed media bias for this turmoil, declaring that the Democratic Party was much less corrupt than its rivals and yet it received the biggest scrutiny, which in turn dragged the popularity of the party through the mud.

After the surveys were released, Democratic Party officials, notably Nurhayati Ali Assegaf, the recently-appointed chairwoman of the Democratic faction in the legislature, questioned the methodology of the surveys and wondered if the surveys were biased.

Yudhoyono and the Democratic officials might have a case that the media and survey methodologies are biased — but given the Democratic Party is being sullied by the ongoing Muhammad Nazaruddin corruption scandal, it cannot be denied that the party has been helping fuel the negative perceptions.

TVOne and MetroTV, the most influential stations in Indonesia, are owned by the leaders of Golkar and the National Democrat (NasDem) Party, respectively. Neither station is shy about advocating the political views of its owners.

They have the ability to shape public opinion on certain subjects, and their coverage in many cases can be considered hostile to the Democrats and Yudhoyono. MetroTV pretty much enjoys rubbing salt in the wounds of the Democrats by repeating the Democratic Party’s mantra, “Say No to Corruption” on its coverage on the ongoing Nazaruddin corruption scandal.

But even with that influence, neither station has been able to propel their respective owners to the front of the presidential candidacy pack.

The SSS and LSI listed Prabowo Subianto and Megawati Sukarnoputri as the two top vote-getters, respectively, should the presidential election be held today. Surya Paloh (NasDem) and Aburizal Bakrie (Golkar) trail. The Democratic Party could make a strong case that the polling organizations are biased, since it is possible that they were paid by either Prabowo, Megawati or both, in order to provide favorable results.

Pollsters have admitted, privately, that there are occasionally incentives to create favorable results in order to either maintain a business relationship with a candidate, or to perform as a public relations tool. Those polling organizations, however, generally fold after the elections because their predictions strayed too far from the actual results.

On the other hand, the polling results from the LSI and SSS are generally close to the actual numbers. While there are some differences in the results, they are often the result of a variation in sampling methods that generally fall within the margin of error.

There are some external factors influencing the results, notably the fact that the presidential election is still some time away and most of the prospective candidates aren’t that well known. Prabowo and Megawati, however, have been on the ballot several times already.

These surveys were useful for the insight they brought to the table and they essentially confirm each other’s findings. The LSI bluntly stated that Yudhoyono’s passivity hurt the Democratic Party’s prospects. The SSS survey stressed that “decisiveness” was the most popular attribute among voters, meaning that Yudhoyono’s inability to rein in the extremist groups such as the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and to safeguard human rights and the freedom to worship also took its toll.

This could be seen in the results of both surveys, where the biggest beneficiaries of the Democratic Party’s collapse in public support are Megawati’s Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) and Golkar, not the religious parties.

The media is important and able to sway public opinion but there is a limit to how much influence it has. It seems more likely that Yudhoyono and the Democratic Party have themselves to blame for these abysmal results.

The media and the surveyors would not have been in a position to do much harm to the president and the Democrats had Yudhoyono acted with vigor and determination in rooting out corruption and cleaning up his party, while acting decisively to stamp out extremist groups and religious intolerance in the country.

----

zerodiversity

1:02pm Jun 22, 2012

I don't trust these surveys especially surveys that place Megawati in top two position. Megawati has not proven much as a President before and her time is over. However, you don't need experts to tell you that the Democrats reputation is free-falling. The President's indecisiveness and leadership problems have been fully exposed as well as the corrupted party members. Add in the fact that high ranking members like Anas and Andi and many others being implicated in corruption and you have a mess of a party. Don't blame the media pak SBY because your party has itself to blame.

Pelan2

1:22pm Jun 22, 2012

@zero - Self destruction seems to be the order of the day. It is indeed unbelievable that a country with roughly 240 mill people are unable to come up with a suitable presidential candidate, but instead keeps pushing forward all the useless "hasbeens" that is hoping for a second chance to make a fool of themselves again...

devine

1:44pm Jun 22, 2012

zerodiversity; correct. And if Mega would have any dignity she would not even consider running again. Bad looser, bad sample for the whole nation. But then, it's Indonesia! OppositeLand...

Pelan2

2:29pm Jun 22, 2012

@devine - careful with the word dignity - you know where we are..

From Indonesia Matters Dec 20th 2008///Megawati was not always quiet when talking to her ministers though, but was generally only roused to speech by matters such as gardening, cooking and food, and shopping, but not affairs of state. On serious issues, she tended to lose her concentration very fast, it is said./// All in a nutshell

Valkyrie

3:22pm Jun 22, 2012

My guess will be that Nasdem will reel in JK and MM. Kingmakers?

Pelan2

4:20pm Jun 22, 2012

Still going with Prabowo if he can surround himself with "clever" people. The Democrats (SBY,Anas, Andi) and Golkar (Ical) has given him enough free ammunition + Mega is largely forgotten. JK has the problem that he is not from Java, but may make a "good" president.

Valkyrie

5:22pm Jun 22, 2012

Pelan2....

Have you observed the presence of JK and MM during many of NasDem gatherings? Isn't it obvious?

I'll go with the Nasdem choice and I'll bet they'll surprise many.

zerodiversity

5:46pm Jun 22, 2012

@Pelan2

Looking at the list of people you mention makes me sad to be Indonesian because after 10-15 years, it's still the same group of people for Presidential candidates. We are approaching oligarchy not democracy. Do we really lack talent and leaders?

Yohanes-Sulaiman

6:22pm Jun 22, 2012

Thank you for your kind comments.

@Zero: I suspect Mega's popularity is due to her high name recognition. Keep in mind that majority of Indonesians (and anyone anywhere) don't follow politics too closely and thus when they are asked these questions, they will just pick the ones they are very familiar with.

I suspect once the field is more established in a year or so, Megawati's popularity will decline. Prabowo, however, could use the momentum from both survey and Jakarta election to propel himself ahead.

Nasdem is an interesting case, where to some degree it stole the votes that supposed go to both Golkar and Democratic Party. IF SP plays his cards right, like some suggested, putting JK and MM as their public faces, it could break the middling rank.

Valkyrie

6:31pm Jun 22, 2012

zero....

No need to be sad. This country is at the bottom of the pit. How deeper can it go?

Go sponsor a poor kid and give him/her a chance. A few of us are currently doing that.

Those tiny drops of water made that mighty ocean.

TalkingEid

7:18pm Jun 22, 2012

Seemingly Indonesian politics has chosen English football club management as its model - fail, and you get invited to do the same trick again.

The President’s Failure at the Fuel Pump Made a Lame Duck Even Less Popular

---
The President’s Failure at the Fuel Pump Made a Lame Duck Even Less Popular
Yohanes Sulaiman | April 04, 2012

'Yudhoyono’s political rivals smelled blood last week with the protests, and they moved to hit him hard.'

Has President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono become a lame duck? Many commentators think so. For months, several Indonesian media outlets, including the usually reserved Kompas, have splattered the term “autopilot” in their headlines and run opinion pieces about the president’s autopilot regime, as the government appears adrift and seems to have left the people to their own devices.

Last week when protests erupted against a proposed increase in the price of subsidized fuel, the government’s response only seemed to confirm Yudhoyono’s status as a lame duck. Many analysts have agreed that the Democratic Party was badly outmaneuvered by its political opponents, with the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) and the Golkar Party finishing ahead.

Looking back, Golkar politicians can claim they knew what they were doing, sensing the pulse of public opinion and acting to minimize the pain at the pump while brokering a deal to save the state’s budget. PDI-P lawmakers can also claim they took the interests of “small people” to heart by opposing the proposed fuel price increase.

The government and the Democratic Party, on the other hand, came off as out of touch by trying to force a painful price hike on already suffering people. At the same time, the party blundered its chance to implement the policy by failing to make a strong case for it.

It was amusing to watch how the government struggled to convey its message as the opposition accused it of being a slave to the interests of multinational companies and of hoodwinking the masses, since oil coming from inside Indonesia is essentially free.

Yudhoyono’s travels in China and South Korea during the week of crisis were also criticized, seen as a way to escape the turmoil back home instead of sticking around to convince his nation of the need for the price hike. These trips abroad reinforced his image as a weak and lackadaisical president.

So why did the government seem surprised by the critical reactions to its proposed fuel price increase? Because the policy has never before been politicized.

Blame for this politicking should land squarely on the Democratic Party’s own shoulders. In the last elections, in 2009, the party released campaign advertisements boasting that Yudhoyono’s government was the first that was able to reduce the price of fuel. Although the claim was widely criticized, it helped propel the party to the top in the legislative elections.


At the same time, however, the ads guaranteed that the party’s rivals would use any rise in fuel prices to hammer Yudhoyono and the Democrats.

As a result, although Tempo reported in January that PDI-P chairwoman Megawati Sukarnoputri had asked the government to raise the price of subsidized fuel due to growing hostility between the United States and Iran, the PDI-P did not think twice about attacking the government to score political points last week. Golkar also squared off with the Democratic Party on the issue of direct cash assistance.

It seems the government expected a degree of grumbling about the unpopular policy but assumed that at the end of the day, everyone would fall back in line and agree.

Consequently, it was caught completely off guard by opposition rallies that erupted nationwide and degenerated into an orgy of violence. Unruly mobs of labor unionists and university students looted fuel stations and trucks, whose sole fault had been to unfortunately cross the mob’s path. Protesters ransacked buildings and caused massive traffic jams, and the threat of military intervention did little to keep the disgruntled masses at home.

Caught unprepared, the government had no choice but to capitulate, allowing Golkar and the PDI-P to declare victory. Without the political elite willing to politicize the fuel price increase, there would have been no massive rallies. Such was the political calculus to secure their positions for the 2014 legislative elections and to ensure that this time, the Democratic Party would share the fallout of the fuel price increase.

The PDI-P and Golkar would not have been able to stir up so much opposition to the government’s policy had Yudhoyono held onto the popularity that won him the election in 2009.

Some may blame the media for their constant assault on the government, but Yudhoyono undeniably planted the seeds of trouble himself, losing support with his indecisiveness, his inability to put his party back in order and his apparently ineffectual response to ethnic and religious conflicts, most notably the GKI Yasmin church in Bogor.

And that’s not even mentioning the many missteps and gaffes of Yudhoyono’s close political allies, such as Marzuki Alie, speaker of the House of Representatives, and Ruhut Sitompul, a Democratic lawmaker.

Yudhoyono is now trapped in a bind. His growing unpopularity curtails his freedom of action and reinforces the notion that he has become a lame duck, which only further reduces his popularity. Not surprisingly, his political rivals smelled blood last week with the fuel price protests, and they moved to hit him hard.

Still, all is not yet lost for the president. Yudhoyono remains the most popular politician in Indonesia with high name recognition among the people, and he is still in command of the bully pulpit, the office of the Indonesian president. The question is, does he still have the presidential will to use that command in order to reverse this loss?

----

Kangkung

10:46am Apr 4, 2012

SBY's problem is: his 2009 popularity votes mean nothing in the parliament as his party has a lot less than majority votes.

He is already in a difficult position from the beginning.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

12:38pm Apr 4, 2012

@Kangkung: Not really. It is very difficult for any party to fight a strong/cunning and popular president. Back in the 1950s, the Masjumi was considered the strongest party, and yet Sukarno was able to split and outmaneuver them badly.

Golkar and other parties would not be able to fare well against a very popular president, until the so many missteps of President SBY.

You may notice that even during the Century scandal when the popularity of SBY was still stratospheric, the oppositions moved very carefully, lest they were seen as trying to depose a very popular president.

agentmacgyver

5:17pm Apr 4, 2012

If Yudhoyono is a lame duck, it is by definition impossible for him to muster enough "political will" to accomplish anything.

Then again, this notion of will is a preferred device of the columnist to avoid proposing realistic courses of action.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

5:23am Apr 5, 2012

@agentmacgyver: Mind to tell me and the readers what would be the realistic courses of actions?

For me, the biggest weaknesses of President SBY is in his indecisiveness, which in turn feeds to this narrative of him being a lame duck.

He, however, can still influence the political process, because he is still the most popular politician in Indonesia with a decent amount of support, regardless of all the batterings, and thus the relentless political assaults from his opponents -- because they have to ensure that he remains down and has a limited freedom of actions.

Basically, I emphasize the need for him to start acting presidential, use the bully pulpit to ensure that people know that he knows what he is doing and what his plan will be, and start taking risks.

I think that is a realistic courses of action. So, what's your idea of a "realistic course of action?" Inquiring minds want to know.

trueblue

6:20am Apr 5, 2012

agentmacgyver. You really are a cynic, who specialises in the cryptic and smart comment. The way I read this article, and indeed many others by this op-ed contributor in the past, leads me to the following conclusion. By continually and relentlessly exposing the weaknesses of the current coalition government, Yohanes is enlightening the voting readers as to the choices that need to be made at the next election. If your view is that the columnist avoids "proposing realistic realistic courses of action", are you alluding to alternative options such as anarchy, industrial turmoil, military intervention, sabotage of essential services etc., etc? It may be tedious, but surely a course that allows the democratic process to slowly grind to a conclusion is the realistic course. I don't wish to second guess Yohanes, who will no doubt post a comment.

exbrit

9:44am Apr 5, 2012

A few months ago SBY demanded that the police produce their wealth reports within one week. I don't recall him getting them. He claimed that he was going to dismantle violent gangs but the FPI are still operating with impunity. In fact they came out with an interesting statement: "Nobody listens to SBY." He promised to fight corruption but suspect Angie is still working in his government and so is Anas, whose name keeps coming up as to having received bribes. Now they have this stupid ministerial declaration that miniskirts are considered porn and yet he says and does nothing.

gregorfence

1:12pm Apr 5, 2012

YS..The title "President" is still attached to SBY and nobody else. He still got minions whose priorities are to him (?) and the top office of the country. You are correct on the faults. The blood as you said, still oozes, but nobody will give the killing blow to end it all. For the simple reason that that will immortalize him and becomes an excuse. There are a lot of them better than SBY, diplomatically and politically, including savvy on technical and management skills. Governance is a theory, actual practice is fart smelling and ass kissing. The things you do for your people. He has opened his ears to the wrong speakers and contemplated on worthless opinions too long. We can not buy time from drugstores, the remedy lost. So what SBY is is a conclusion. He mean well, and that to be the head of state is not good enough.

Nasrep, Tommy and the Smiling General

Not sure what else to add.

----

Nasrep, Tommy and the Smiling General

Yohanes Sulaiman & Phillip Turnbull | February 09, 2012

Hoping to bypass the government’s verification process for new political parties, the National Republic Party last week decided to merge with the struggling Ummah Conscience Party, which participated in the 2009 elections and can run again in 2014. As a result, the new party, led by Hutomo “Tommy” Mandala Putra, the son of Indonesia’s former presidential strongman Suharto, can now throw its hat in the ring, too.

The National Republic Party, known as Nasrep, has indicated that it will base its platform on the policies espoused by Suharto, who was ousted by popular dissent in 1998 and died in 2008. By doing this, Tommy hopes to tap into the popular discontent of people who are fed up with the scandals under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and the self-enriching House of Representatives. Many wish to return to what they perceive as the more stable times of Suharto.

So is Tommy asking us to believe that the best way forward is a few steps back?

For 32 years, Suharto ruled Indonesia by sheer force, and his achievements were staggering. He pushed Indonesia ahead economically, especially by developing energy resources and mining, and he can be credited with laying the foundations for unprecedented economic growth today. One can only wonder what would have happened had he also recognized that economic growth must be accompanied by political reforms.

During Suharto’s reign, Indonesia experienced relative peace among its highly diverse religious, cultural and ethnic groups. Backed by the military, Suharto ruled from a centralized stronghold with little real diffused authority in the provinces. Corruption, cronyism and nepotism of course existed but were not widely dispersed.

However, Indonesia under Suharto experienced a not-so-benign patrimonial tyranny that kept the country reasonably stable only because of the overly docile nature of the average Indonesian. Whatever benefits Suharto brought, the price in terms of human rights abuses and a reign of terror was simply too high.

Suharto’s reputation will be forever tarnished by charges that he looked after his family more than the interests of the country. The problem is that this mentality continues to persist today in some circles. Like Suharto, many politicians still stand in the way of political reform, while a tyranny of money politics spreads corruption into practically every aspect of public life..

But times have also changed, and people are not as docile as they were under Suharto’s hard-handed reign. While there is little threat that the country will disintegrate with seceding provinces, despite the problems in Papua, there is another possibility: Indonesia could face disintegration in the sense that its people, once united by tolerance, may fall apart. The present situation contains the seeds of potential social and political upheaval on a massive scale. Suharto kept things in check, but governments since have not been able to do so.

Look at the closure of the GKI Yasmin church in Bogor. In a recent meeting between Yudhoyono and religious leaders from Papua, when the president promised to solve the problems in the province, the Rev. Socratez Sofyan Yoman asked: “How can you solve the problems in Papua, which is located thousands of kilometers [from Jakarta], while there is a very urgent matter that also requires your attention just 15 kilometers from here — the GKI Yasmin case?”

Yudhoyono has said he does not have the power to do anything about the Bogor situation, which he has left for regional authorities. Suharto would have smiled at this response — and done something.

At the same time, like some politicians today, Suharto was tragically adverse to political change, and this proved to be his undoing. He did not prepare to move on and let someone else have a go. Perhaps he thought, as no doubt many of his subjects did, that no one wanted him to go. It was a rude shock when he found out in 1998 that he had been wrong.

Nothing was in place to replace the dictator, whose downfall led to chaos, mayhem and murder, and the damage remains today. Years of living under Suharto has left the political class largely infantile and unable to shoulder responsibility, leading the late President Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid to complain that Indonesian politicians behaved like kindergarteners.

So what will Tommy do? Will he learn from his father’s mistakes? Will he make a strong leader? Will his Nasrep Party understand what few do, that the first duty of a politician is to take a form of responsibility that outweighs family ties, personal monetary gain and popularity?

Tommy’s track record to date does not indicate that he fully understands this role. Ten years ago, he was jailed for ordering the murder of a Supreme Court judge who had convicted him of fraud in 2000. That fraud conviction was overturned and he was freed after serving four years, but since leaving prison, what has he done for the country?

There is no doubt that as Tommy’s party seeks the limelight, we can expect more nostalgia for the “good” old days of the New Order. But should that translate into a desire for a return to Suharto’s style of government? It’s one thing to idealize the past, but what if we conveniently forget that Suharto was responsible for serious crimes against humanity and plundering Indonesia’s wealth?

At the time of Suharto’s death, Yudhoyono spoke of the former dictator as a national hero, asking delegates at an international conference on corruption to acknowledge his passing with a minute of silence. The ironic act indicates that perhaps the nation is not yet able to deal with the Suharto experience.

With the rise of Tommy’s party, maybe it is time for Indonesia to definitively decide whether Suharto’s regime was good for Indonesia. Suharto to some extent achieved a tolerant, diversified Indonesia, but at the end of the day, he did not make the country a better place. On the contrary, his legacy has provided a pattern for today’s political shortcomings. Tommy’s party needs to recognize this if it is to contribute to a better Indonesia.


----

trueblue

1:02pm Feb 9, 2012

Yohanes/Turnbull

Gents, you ask a very relevant question with a proposition that for Indonesia to move forward, it needs to take a few steps back. A simple glance in the political rear vision mirror indicates that Indonesia needs to put the indicators on and have them blinking right. Any further centre lane, or heaven forbid left lane politics is old news. The experimenting politics to date have given a credible 6.5%GDP, but the spread of wealth and employment, and minimum wages leave a country with an imbalance. May I suggest that NRP, by virtue of consolidation of political parties is a step in the right direction of reducing the the number of parties, and therefore enabling the concepts of government, opposition, coalitions, to be more identifiable to the voter. I have posted in previous weeks the concepts of strong leadership, and examples to debate. As a non voter this is not an endorsement of the NRP, but a plea to get it right at the next election. My wife thinks when she votes

Yohanes-Sulaiman

8:45am Feb 10, 2012

@Trueblue: Thank you for your comments.

I actually agree with more consolidation of Indonesian political parties. First of all, it will reduce confusion on the ballot boxes, second, most of the extremists' parties, including the porn-obsessed party (you know who) would keep losing their share of votes, as the political parties become more and more consolidated. This current system actually rewards the extremist parties for their extremism as even a small number of votes allow them to retain their seats. Should they have to integrate to a much larger parties, they have to be more moderate to attract votes all over the place.

Still, I doubt if NRP's acquisition is a trend toward responsible party system. Rather it is simply bypassing the party-stress test and take the shortcut to the election, which kinda indicates what kind of party they'd be should they get elected.

Lack of Resolve in Tackling Scandals Is Causing Democratic Party to Crumble

This is, what my old editor would call "my weekly bashing on President SBY."

--
Lack of Resolve in Tackling Scandals Is Causing Democratic Party to Crumble
Yohanes Sulaiman & Phillip Turnbull | January 30, 2012

'The Democrats' disorganized damage control may cost them more than the loss of public opinion'

Last week, the Democratic Party convened an internal meeting, reportedly focusing on the impending indictment of party chairman Anas Urbaningrum and Sports Minister Andi Mallarangeng by antigraft investigators.

Both Anas and Andi have denied the claims of having benefited from state-funded projects or receiving illegal payments connected with the construction of the athletes’ village for the 2011 Southeast Asian Games.

However, in its usual dissembling manner, the party is sending mixed signals. Democratic lawmaker Max Sopacua said recent discussions at the president’s home with senior party members centered on the possibility of replacing Anas. In other reports, House of Representatives Speaker Marzuki Alie and party secretary general Ramadhan Pohan denied this.

Still, by convening the meeting, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and his Democratic officials have finally acknowledged that they are in serious trouble because of allegations of corruption leveled at some it its politicians, including some already on trial, from the now-infamous Muhammad Nazaruddin.

According to the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI), support for the party once the most popular in the country has plunged to 14 percent, significantly below the Golkar Party (18 percent) and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P, 19 percent). Such warnings of the collapse of the public’s support of the party have until now been denied and dismissed by Yudhoyono and his politicians.

Another issue in this fracas now being played out in public to the dismay of Yudhoyono’s administration is whether the Democratic Party, which won a second term of office in 2009 with a promise to clean up corruption, is really that clean. Have members of the party, including its highest members, either turned a blind eye or actively colluded in the bribery process, as alleged by Nazaruddin?

So far, both the Democratic Party and Yudhoyono have tried to bury the indictment. According to press reports, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is being hampered in efforts to issue arrest warrants for Anas and Andi from within both the Democratic Party and the KPK. The Tribun newspaper even broke the story that Abraham Samad, the head of the KPK, flew into a rage at having been prevented by his co-leaders, Busyro Muqoddas and Bambang Widjojanto, from indicting the Democratic Party pair. This indicates that the KPK has an interest in the two and thinks they have a case to answer.

At the same time, speculation is mounting that there is pressure on Anas to step aside, if not resign, at least while he is under a cloud.

Names are being mentioned as replacements for Anas if he is removed or steps aside; so far Andi, his rival for the position in 2010, is curiously absent from that list.

Common sense indicates that Anas should step aside because it would not only be reasonable, given the infighting surrounding his fate, but politically advantageous to Yudhoyono and his beleaguered party. Anas’s resignation or removal, preferably the former, would be a very public statement that the president and his party are serious about investigating corruption.

As Yudhoyono told anticorruption activists at a meeting at the State Palace last Wednesday, “I can say that no one can escape the law during my term. That is the outcome of my administration’s more aggressive anticorruption efforts.”

The president has acknowledged that his government must be seen to be doing what it promised to do. In this he is backed by Vice President Boediono, who recently spoke on the topic of corruption eradication, saying: “We cannot claim to be successful while the people do not feel the same way. We are successful if people feel satisfied.”

Growing public dissatisfaction with the fight against corruption, dubious political spin and reactive damage control by the Democrats could serve only to shoot them in the foot.

Yet it is difficult for Yudhoyono to reach a conclusion he wants. The stakes are high. If it turns out that Anas dispersed funds inappropriately in his bid for party chairman, it will also implicate those who were willing to receive these funds and vote for him.

The Nazaruddin scandal shows that hell hath no fury like a politician scorned. Political analyst Eep Saefulloh Fatah argued that Yudhoyono’s modus vivendi now was simply to find a safe harbor for his family; should the scandal blow up, it would drag his family down with it because it is widely believed to be a beneficiary of Anas’s largesse — not to mention the mortal damage to the brand of the Democratic Party, the party’s prospects in 2014 and Yudhoyono’s own legacy.

More disturbingly, some commentators have concluded that Yudhoyono, by wavering, has ceded control of his party to Anas.

The chairman was believed to have built a loyal bloc within the Democratic Party, leading to several regional branches voicing support for him, and there are even talks of impending massive demonstration in support of Anas in Jakarta.

It is the lack of resolve that is especially damaging the president and the ruling party because, left untended, the small fire has turned into an inferno.

The public is angry, and the president has acknowledged this. In the present display of the party’s disintegration we are seeing what happens when politicians ignore the elephant in the room and are sluggish to respond.

Slow in grasping what is happening. Slow in thinking it through. Slow in communicating with each other and the public. Slow to decide and slow to act. Slow in pulling people into line. Slow in speaking with a united voice.

Yudhoyono’s dithering and the party’s disorganized damage control may cost them more than the loss of public opinion. Ultimately, time and facts will catch up with them, if they haven’t already.

Discarded Sandals, Nascent Democracy

The reason why I first deal with the Arab Spring and put "Syria" in the mix was because I promised a reader that I'd address the killings in Syria in my next article.

-----
Discarded Sandals, Nascent Democracy
Yohanes Sulaiman | January 06, 2012

Aktivis perlindungan anak Seto Mulyadi (tengah) dalam acara penggalangan sandal jepit di kantor Komisi Perlindungan Anak Indonesia (KPAI) Jakarta, Selasa (3/1). FOTO: INDRA HARDI/RM

This week marks the first anniversary of the death of Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian street vendor whose self-immolation sparked the Arab Spring and led to the downfall of three Middle East dictators, with two more seemingly on their way out.

Yet the long-term effects of the Arab Spring remain unclear due to the lack of strong legal systems in the region. Democracy and minority rights are in a precarious condition in Egypt, for example, thanks in part to the Egyptian military, which uses kangaroo trials and raids to pressure the opposition.

In Syria, counterrevolution attacks by the ruling regime have left more than 6,000 people dead, tens of thousands wounded and many more imprisoned under dubious accusations. In Bahrain, the Shiites continue to criticize the ruling house for its Saudi-backed repressive policies and a rigged judicial system, which has unfairly sentenced many people to long prison sentences.

It is not a pretty picture. Like Georges Danton, a major figure of the French Revolution, said in his own kangaroo trial, “The revolution is like Saturn, devouring all of its children.”

Many analysts have made a strong case that Middle Eastern countries would do well to learn from Indonesia’s successful transition to democracy. Indonesia does have many lessons to teach, such as the successful withdrawal of the military from the political arena and a relatively stable democracy.

Yet Indonesia has also had its own share of judicial troubles that should serve as a warning, not a guide.

As an example, consider the recent “sandal trial” in Central Sulawesi, where a 17-year-old boy was put in the dock for allegedly stealing a pair of sandals from a police officer.

The trial is fascinating for three reasons, the first being that it was even held at all. The supposedly stolen sandals did not fit the accuser’s feet and were the wrong brand, while the police officer said he knew they belonged to him because he had a “spiritual connection” with them. Given these facts, it seems likely that the prosecutor did not examine the details of the case before sending it to court. In other countries, this kind of conduct would trigger an investigation into the prosecutors’ professional conduct and the police officer’s own mental sanity.

In essence, the sandal case reveals the lack of legal depth of Indonesia’s supposed upholders of law. Had this happened in the United States, the district attorney would have refused to take the case, while the police’s legal affairs team would have told the officer he had no case and would likely face a costly public relations nightmare.

The second reason this trial is interesting is because it shows how mob rule is still present in Indonesia. It is very doubtful that the teenager would have been set free had there not been such a public outrage. As we have seen in other high-profile trials — notably, the killing of Ahmadiyah members in Cikeusik, West Java, and the “Ariel Peterporn” scandal — sentences are often determined not by the severity of the misconduct, but the noise of spectators during the trial, or, in many corruption cases, by the power and connections of the defendants.

Because the judicial system lacks independence and integrity, it is no wonder that many trials look like an audition for “Indonesian Idol,” with interested parties bringing along as many supporters as they can and brawls occasionally erupting outside courthouses. Nobody is convinced of the judicial independence of the court systems in Indonesia, and thus people attribute any negative outcomes to the justices being bribed by the winning parties, regardless of a case’s merit.

The third reason the sandal trial was fascinating is because it shows how the idea of shame has not taken root in the bureaucracy. The National Police, facing a public relations disaster, decided to up the ante. Rather than acknowledging the public’s outrage, which was manifested in the donations of sandals, it declared its intention without shame to donate the sandals to the needy. Ironically, many needy people were among those who donated the sandals in the first place.

The Attorney General’s Office, rather than admitting that the trial was stupid, asked the public to “withhold judgment” and focus on the fact that the “five-year sentence” was still a “possibility.” The trial was all a bad show, but the show had to go on because the actors could not admit it was so bad.

At the same time, instead of dismissing the charge, the judges found the defendant guilty but “decided to be lenient,” surrendering to public pressure by releasing him to his parents’ custody. None were willing to admit that the trial had been a waste of time.

Such institutional pride, fueled by egos the size of battleships, does not bode well for the long-term health of the country’s democracy. With such distrust in the legal system, people believe they have to go to the street to demand justice, turning democracy into anarchy.

The remaining Middle Eastern despots are aware of this fear, namely that they are the last bastions of stability in countries where the judicial system is a mess, and it keeps them from being overthrown by a fed-up population.

For the sake of democracy, Indonesia should also take heed. In exposing a rotten system, a pair of sandals could be the straw that breaks the back of a young democracy.

Indonesian Politics: Advice for the Unknown Candidate

The ending of this article was changed. The original ending was giving a tongue-in-cheek advice, telling the candidate either to marry an actress or to get a star part in a  soap, since it would have been the best way to increase one's exposure to the soap-loving community of Indonesia.

Instead, in this ending, it seemed to tell the candidate to marry an actress or to star in a soap should his bid fail to get traction.

Probably just a minor sticking point.

----
Indonesian Politics: Advice for the Unknown Candidate
Yohanes Sulaiman | November 05, 2011

With President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono bleeding support in a rash of recent public opinion surveys, it’s no surprise that the political sharks smell blood and are circling for opportunity.

Proposing oneself as a credible alternative candidate, even as early as this year, is very tempting, given that the movement to bring down Yudhoyono seems to be gaining steam lately thanks to the president’s latest blunders.

The most significant of these, of course, is the recent reshuffling of the cabinet. While the market breathed a sigh of relief with the reappointment of highly respected Finance Minister Agus Martowardojo, there were complaints that Yudhoyono did not take corruption seriously, given the reappointment of several ministers that are currently embroiled in scandals.

Eyebrows were also raised over Yudhoyono’s pick of Jero Wacik as the new energy minister, which is seen as a way to ensure that the money from Indonesia’s lucrative energy sector will remain controlled by the Democratic Party. Disappointment at seeing another opportunity wasted adds momentum to a movement to undermine the administration.

Another significant test for the administration hinges on the success of the upcoming Southeast Asian Games, which have been riddled with delays and procurement scandals.

A political insider recently told me that many believe 2012 is a critical year. If Yudhoyono can weather the political storm in the coming year, he will be able to finish his term in 2014. Otherwise, an impeachment is looming on the horizon.

Not surprisingly, anyone with any political ambition is coming out of the woodwork to declare their electability. This explains the recent proliferation of surveys preemptively declaring the winner of the next presidential election.

The Indonesian Voting Network (JSI) put Megawati Sukarnoputri in first place, with 24 percent support, far ahead of Gen. Prabowo Subianto, her former running mate, with 18 percent. Aside from Aburizal Bakrie, who took third place in the survey with a respectable showing of 14 percent, the rest of the field is littered with potential candidates showing support ratings of less than 5 percent.

In another survey, Soegeng Sarjadi Syndicate showed Prabowo the clear winner with 28 percent support, far ahead of Constitutional Court Justice Mahfud MD at 11 percent. While former Minister of Finance Sri Mulyani managed to get 7.4 percent, just ahead of Bakrie’s 6.8 percent, the surprising loser in the survey was Megawati at less than 1 percent.

In a Reform Institute poll, Bakrie was the clear winner with 14 percent. Prabowo placed second with a respectable 9 percent, followed by former Vice President Jusuf Kalla at 7 percent.

The three vastly differing results bring into question the reliability of these surveys. How did three surveys done at almost the same time manage to place different winners with vastly different percentage results?

The knee-jerk answer to this question is that the surveys were sponsored by interested parties that wanted to ensure their names would be on top.

Such an answer, however, ignores one less obvious, and yet very important take-home point of these surveys — that the clear winner of the next presidential election is “Don’t Know,” with a support rating of 30 percent.

In fact, choosing Indonesia’s next president is more of a Jakarta parlor game.

At this point, so far removed from the 2014 election, the majority of the public simply has not made a choice concerning the next election.

They simply have more pressing issues to pursue in their daily lives, and have very little interest (or most likely, they are politically apathetic) in discussing something that will not take place for another three years. Faced with a buffet of names, most of whom they don’t even recognize, they simply chose the most familiar names on the menu or shrugged and expressed the fact that they had no idea whom they would choose.

This also explains the result of the survey by the Indonesian Survey Circle (LSI). While the LSI was correct in stressing that there is very low trust in young politicians in Indonesia, the reason is simply the fact that people have very low trust in politicians in general thanks to a succession of scandals.

Therefore, here’s some assurance for anybody with a shred of presidential aspiration out there: The field is still wide open. Ignore the results of these surveys and go for it.

That said, the paradox is that a successful campaign will require lots and lots of money, and unfortunately the wealthy backers will not open their wallets until they know the sure winner.

If the election season draws nearer and you’re not among the top three candidates, don’t despair. If past campaigns are any indication, there are still options for a candidate with a limited budget to get a star part in a popular TV soap or marry a popular actress.

As the surveys indicate, nothing is yet set in stone.