Indonesian VP Candidates’ Debate Analysis: Idealism vs. Delusion Utopianism vs. Anti-Oligarchs
The recent Indonesian vice presidential debate has concluded, and if you check social media, you’ll notice that most people believe Gibran dominated this debate. From a psychological perspective, it’s a surprising turn considering many doubted his ability to handle Mahfud and Imin.
However, my article will delve into something subtler, something beyond debate practice but rather, ideology and definitely, some reality check.
Rocky Gerung made it clear that this debate would largely focus on ideology, and frankly, that’s quite evident. The debate kicked off on a positive note, delving into discussions about economic growth, digitalization, and infrastructure. It felt genuinely productive for everyone involved until the conversation shifted to the IKN topic, causing a shift where everyone began to turn against one another.
Gibran’s delusion utopianism and his jargons-dumpings
Gibran initiated a shift by expressing his vision and mission, which I was certain would impress young voters. He introduced numerous terms highly familiar in the tech sphere, such as cybersecurity, crypto, and blockchains. However, this ‘jargons-dumpings’ move isn’t new for the second pair.
Spokespersons for Prabowo-Gibran frequently discuss how AI will dominate IKN, and all these empty claims relate to technological advancements.
Tossing around terms is easy, but let’s face reality: Indonesia’s digital literacy levels are still significantly low.
The Ministry of Communications and Information’s Digital Literacy Index scores Indonesia at 3.49 (on a scale of 1 to 5) in 2021, with the digital safety indicator getting the lowest mark.
Gibran’s statement about Indonesia becoming “THE KING OF GREEN ENERGY” and “THE KING OF WORLD’S ENERGY” also seems quite amusing to me.
If you take a look at our country’s CO2 profile, you’ll quickly see how unrealistically ridiculous Gibran’s statements are. His claims about Indonesia becoming the foremost leader in green energy and global energy seem disconnected from our current environmental realities.
Indonesia is the 3rd-largest coal producer in the world and is a major coal consumer itself. And with new coal plants on the pipeline, the nation’s coal consumption will grow consistently until 2029.
Gibran managed to catch Mahfud off guard by bringing up “carbon capture and storage” regulations, a topic he could simplify or clarify. He also successfully caught Imin by mentioning SGIE, an English acronym for the State of Global Islamic Economy, making it sound like it was an Indonesian acronym.
In my view, this ‘jargons-trap’ tactic seems more like a low-level debate maneuver. Instead of posing genuinely substantial questions, Gibran opted to highlight his questions as clever traps, aiming to outsmart the other candidates rather than focusing on essential topics. Back in time, Jokowi also played a similar game against Prabowo in 2019, asking questions related to ‘unicorn’, the strategy remains — all about using trendy (unheard) terms to spice up discussions and debates.
Gibran’s emphasis on technological terms like cybersecurity, particularly highlighting the “Solo Techno Park,” strikes me as another amusing argument. Frankly, numerous private institutions, such as Cyber Academy or Cakap, seem to outshine this “Techno Park”, which used some funds injection from the government.
Gibran appears so detached from reality. He struggled to provide a clear explanation regarding his ambiguous proposal for the 23% tax bracket. Additionally, when questioned about government fund allocations for sanitation, he diverted the topic to discussing stunting, failing to address the question correctly, seems like a selective hearing.
The use of jargon seems irrelevant, especially when compared to the actual economic conditions shaped by his father. This contrast offers hope to many who might not be fully aware of the true state of Indonesia’s economy.
His concept of “Hilirisasi” warrants further exploration, especially when examining available data and its practical application in reality.
It was Gibran who utilized the logical fallacy of ad hominem and presented a false dilemma when comparing IKN with other cities’ development. He seemed to overlook the fundamental differences between starting IKN from scratch and developing established cities.
Imin’s idealism and his messy, terrible ‘slepet’-injection, we are tired of this word
Cak Imin used the word ‘slepet’ as an analogy for ‘reminding’ and ‘awakening’ others, which is a cool analogy, but it was overly used, becoming somewhat repetitive. He even injected it to be ‘slepet-conomy’.
Please stop. We are tired of this word.
Imin also presented some idealistic figures like 150 trillion IDR for youth development and 5 million IDR per village, which seemed unrealistically optimistic.
Yet, I think he should have focused more on emphasizing and elaborating further on ‘padat karya’ (labor-intensive) rather than ‘padat modal’ (capital-intensive), it seems like an interesting idea that was overlooked.
Imin’s essence isn’t far from Anies; both are idealistic leaders with lofty ideas. I appreciate how he stressed the importance of a priority scale regarding the IKN issue and the digitalization gap, countering Gibran’s utopian views, but he certainly could have done so much better.
Mahfud’s Anti-Oligarchs grassroots approach
Throughout the discussion tonight, Mahfud’s focus remained on grassroots solutions. He emphasized the necessity of regulations fostered by corruption-free governance and highlighted the importance of aligning digitalization with law enforcement, using tangible, measurable data such as ‘pinjol’ (online loan apps).
He also raised several concerns regarding the challenges faced by IKN in attracting investors. I’d be glad to read your article for further insight into this topic.
He could have certainly performed better if he had taken a more assertive stance. There was one instance where he effectively highlighted Gibran’s lack of clarity regarding tax ratios, and that was a strong point in his argument.
This brings to mind one of Rocky Gerung’s viewpoints before the debate. He mentioned that since PDIP is recognized for its ‘social justice’ principles, Mahfud should embody that concept, and indeed, he did just that during the debate.
My conclusion from this debate is a sense of mental exhaustion due to the subtlety of Gibran’s somewhat deceptive maneuvers and how they managed to impress many Indonesians.
His post-debate tweet “Let Him Cook,” emphasizing his victory, is concerning. It’s crucial not to overlook the potentially dangerous nature of his ideology despite the apparent success in the debate.
I’m nearly pessimistic considering the substantial support Prabowo-Gibran is receiving. There’s a worry that they could win the election while the utopian and delusional narrative they’re promoting seems destined to fail in reality.
