Presidential candidates Joko Widodo and Prabowo Subianto shake hands after the second presidential debate on June 15, 2014. (Reuters Photo/Beawiharta)
Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo once said: “You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.” In Sunday night’s presidential debate, held at the Hotel Gran Melia in Kuningan, Central Jakarta, presidential candidates Prabowo Subianto and Joko Widodo were challenged to translate their incredibly poetic campaigns thus far into substantive policy measures in two of the most important issues in the minds of every Indonesian: economic development and social welfare.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono may have stabilized Indonesia’s macroeconomic indicators and provided an institutional framework for direct transfer payments through the National Program for Community Empowerment (PNPM) or the Social Insurance Organizing Body (BPJS), but these programs have not been as successful in lowering the stubbornly high poverty levels and developing badly needed infrastructure in the rural areas. The debate was a chance for both candidates to show what they would do in the next five years.
Moderated by Brawijaya University economics professor Ahmad Erani Yustika, the debate format differed from the first held a week earlier because it featured only the presidential candidates without their respective running mates, and there were no podiums for candidates to speak from or lean on. Candidates had to rely on only their quick wits and a handheld microphone to convince voters of their competence to lead Indonesia.
So, who or what were the winners and losers of this debate?
Joko seems to have won the debate, albeit only barely. The Jakarta Governor continued his streak of defying expectations by performing up to par in a topic which he is clearly the less experienced one: economics. His policy proposals are novel and elaborate as shown in the debate segment regarding infrastructure. Joko committed to make sea transportation easier in this archipelagic state through the construction of deep sea ports all over Indonesia and replace Indonesia’s Dutch-era rail tracks simply with double-tracked railways. In comparison, Prabowo’s promise to build 3,000 kilometers of highways and more railways seem “meh.”
Joko’s use of the Kartu Indonesia Sehat (Indonesia Health Card) and Kartu Indonesia Pintar (Indonesia Smart Card) transfer payment schemes as a panacea for Indonesia’s income inequality problems – complete with props – is a meaningful attempt at showcasing his successful tenures as mayor and governor. However, the cards have been exploited politically to death by Joko for almost every office he has run for to the point that it is becoming increasingly tiresome to hear about it.
His response to build more markets in an effort increase Indonesia’s macroeconomic indicators and GDP levels makes him sound amateurish, as though he is unable to widen his horizons from his time in local government offices. Throughout the debate, he clearly seemed uncomfortable, relied heavily on index cards and was reluctant to take on the “attack dog” mantle that his running mate, Jusuf Kalla, so clearly relished in the first debate.
To be fair to Prabowo, his performance in this debate clearly outshone his underwhelming one in the previous debate. He sounded more prepared, came up with enough policy proposals, found a central issue in the Rp 1,000 trillion worth of “leakage” due to corruption and rent-seeking, which he promised to plug, and reassured foreign investors fearful of the overtly nationalistic tone of his campaign.
However, Prabowo hasn’t quite grasped the idea of a debate. He still employs pithy one-liner responses and repetitive campaign slogans when given an opportunity to elaborate on the issues which he is supposed to have the upper hand. Also, Prabowo should note that there is a reason why his advisors told him to never agree with his opponent in a televised debate – it makes him seem unoriginal and unthoughtful, especially when Joko clearly made more policy contributions in the segment about the creative industries.
Farmers, fishermen and creative workers
During the debate, both candidates spared no opportunity to display their soft spots for farmers and fishermen and exalt them as the backbone of Indonesia’s economy. Whether or not this is a calculated attempt to entice the largest bloc of voters in this election is beside the point – by demonstrating commitment to increase agricultural and fishing output in an effort to reduce reliance on imports through subsidies and assistance programs, they both show that no matter who becomes president for the next five years, Indonesia will remain, at its essence, an agricultural state.
Both candidates also demonstrated a clear commitment to help develop the creative industries, with Joko being the most enthusiastic as he waxed lyrical about the country’s cultural wealth and listed the various professions within the industry waiting for government assistance such as animators, the performing arts and cultural craftsmen. Prabowo, not wishing to be outdone, highlighted his only son Didit Hediprasetyo’s career as a fashion designer whose works have featured in international shows, including the runways of the esteemed Paris Fashion Show.
Foreign investment and businesses
If foreign investors needed any public reassurance of the two presidential candidates’ commitment to their continued presence in Indonesia, all they had to do was listen to the Sunday debate. Prabowo proved once and for all he will welcome foreign investments as long as there is a “fair deal” for Indonesia, and aimed to quadruple existing foreign investments if it meant the number of Indonesians employed would also increase four-fold. For Joko, his unwillingness to renegotiate existing contracts — only to very publicly signal his intention to exploit contractual loopholes — definitely reassured existing investors that Indonesia, under a Joko presidency, will honor existing agreements while keeping a more watchful eye in future negotiations.
Both candidates are promising to hike up minimum wages for laborers, with Joko proudly defending his labor credentials by asserting his decision as Jakarta governor to increase the provincial minimum wage by 44 percent. This would probably cause concern among business circles on how to sustain existing business models that has so far been supported by very low wages.
Both candidates are also promising a greater role for the government in the economy, which will come as a disturbance to many who have been enjoying the Yudhoyono administration’s hands-off approach to private sector growth. Prabowo confidently asserted that “the government should not only just be a referee in the economy, but more a driver and a pioneer”.
Unaddressed issues
None of the programs or initiatives promised by both Prabowo and Joko will come cheap. Massive infrastructure investments (through Prabowo’s highways and railways or Joko’s deep sea ports) and the introduction of massive transfer payment schemes (such as Prabowo’s allocation of one billion Rupiahs to every village or Joko’s Kartu Indonesia Sehat/Pintar) will ensure that government expenditure will definitely outpace revenue collection in a country where tax evasion is the norm rather than the exception.
However, both candidates did not make any substantive attempt towards explaining their position on the graft-ridden tax collection mechanism or the Taxation Directorate-General, which means that both candidates may want to concretize whatever flimsy plans they might already have to expand the tax base.
Additionally, none of the two candidates provided any roadmap for sustainable development, even as Indonesia has fallen short of its Millennium Development Goals 2015 target. Prabowo even ambitiously targeted to free up two million hectares of land for agricultural development, which means that even if one counts the damaged forested areas that he promises to cultivate, large tracts of existing virgin forests that will have to make way in order to fulfill this single promise. With both sides promising massive development agendas across Indonesia, it would be appropriate to see how their plans ensure that development would not come at the cost of immense environmental degradation.
By Jason Salim on 06:08 pm Jun 17, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment