Dark day for Indonesia’s democracy?

Court rules there was no evidence to support allegations that there was ‘a structured, systematic and massive’ fraud during the election, thus rejecting lawsuits filed by presidential candidates, anies and Ganjar.

THE decision by Indonesia’s Constitutional Court last Monday in rejecting lawsuits filed by presidential candidates Anies Baswedan and Ganjar Pranowo wasn’t a surprise.

But the fact that three of the eight justices presiding over the case presented dissenting views was unprecedented in the history of the highest court in the land.

The Constitutional Court had always come out with a unanimous decision on matters pertaining to presidential election disputes.

In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled that there was no evidence to support allegations that there was “a structured, systematic and massive” fraud during the election.

In their petitions, both Anies and Ganjar claimed that government institutions, regional leaders and state-sponsored social assistance (bansos) had been misused by President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) to sway the polls.

The petitioners were demanding for a Prabowo Subiantogibran Rakabuming Raka disqualification and a nationwide repeat of the presidential election.

“The plaintiff’s petition has no legal basis in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo on behalf of judges Daniel Yusmic Pancastaki Foeckh, Guntur Hamzah, Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani.

The dissenting judges are Saldi Isra, Arief Hidayat and Enny Nurbaningsih. Enny is the sole woman judge on the bench. The ninth judge, Anwar Usman, was barred from hearing the case as he was found guilty of ethical violation. He is Gibran’s uncle and was demoted from his position as the President of the Court.

The reaction to the verdict is swift and harsh. To some, it is a dark day for Indonesia’s democracy. The judges have failed in their mission to be the guardians of the Constitution and to uphold law, order, ethics and morality. They should have shown the true meaning of ketatanegaraan (the art of governing) and brought back sanity to the electoral processes, marred by fraudulent methods.

It is said that this election is the most brutal, dirtiest and worst since Reformasi.

Jokowi and his cohorts have betrayed the spirits of reformasi.

Prior to the reading of the verdict last Monday, the leader of Indonesia’s Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), Megawati Sukarnoputri in an article in Kompas reminded the judges that the people of Indonesia are watching them to resolve the dispute “with conscience and statesmanship”. She has every reason to be disappointed by the outcome.

Many argued that it is almost surreal that the five judges did not see evidence of fraud, misuse of power and the practice of nepotism in the election.

The sitting president was unashamedly involved to ensure a win for his son’s team. He was openly giving out social aid meant for El Nino and other natural calamities during the campaigns.

Ironically, despite the plaintiffs preparing a treasure trove of evidence, the court ruled that only a limited number of evidence was allowed. The court sittings were slotted for 14 working days. Only 19 witnesses and experts from each petitioner were allowed to testify or present their cases.

As for the four ministers called to give evidence, they were not allowed to be questioned by the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Failing to scrutinise their actions during the election, the court was not able to prove the inner workings of the government. Or the impact of the government’s widespread distribution of aid – including rice, cash and fertiliser – in key battleground areas.

Yet, the court found that there was no causality between the distribution of social assistance and the increase in votes for a particular candidate.

The court gave the petitioners just one day to present their witnesses and experts.

Interestingly, in the verdict, the court said there was “not enough evidence” and the parties involved had “failed to prove the allegations” as claimed.

Many even questioned the position taken by the newly-appointed Chief Justice of the Court, Suhartoyo. Lest we forget, he was one of the four dissenting judges not in favour of lowering the age to allow Gibran to contest.

For whatever reasons, he has turned 180 degrees, according to his detractors.

In a nutshell, the three judges concurred with the plaintiffs that not all was well in the election.

Although they did not consent to all the demands by the losers, they agreed that the petitioners’ arguments were legally grounded in part.

All three raised the issue of non-neutrality of state officials, including the president, during the election. And all three agreed to a repeat election in certain problematic areas.

They also chastised the observing body (Bawaslu) for failing miserably in performing their tasks to ensure that the election commission (KPU) conducted a free, clean and fair election.

The decision of the Constitutional Court is final and binding, clearing Prabowo’s path to become the eighth President of Indonesia. But the court ruling left a bitter aftertaste of how an election should have been conducted in the third largest democracy in the world.

It was not the fault of Prabowo, an ex-army man who had contested twice against Jokowi in 2014 and 2019. He never conceded defeat because he believed he was cheated by the system before.

As president, he has to do the right thing come the next presidential election.