Seals Prabowo-Gibran’s historic victory by securing the largest number of votes in the history of direct presidential elections, marking a significant milestone in Indonesia’s political landscape
Jakarta, IO – On Monday (22/4), the Constitutional Court (MK) dismissed all petitions filed by losing presidential pairs Anies Baswedan and Muhaimin Iskandar (Team No 1) and Ganjar Pranowo and Mahfud MD (Team No 3) in the election result dispute (PHPU) case. The top court ruled that their appeals are “legally unreasonable in their entirety”.
The arguments put forward in the petitions included lack of impartiality on the part of the Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) and the Election Organization Ethics Council (DKPP), interference by President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, notably his alleged attempt by distributing social assistance to sway voters, as well as abuse of power by officials from the central, regional and village administrations through the mobilization of government resources to help propel Prabowo Subianto and Gibran Rakabuming Raka (Team No 2) to victory.
The MK ruling thus extinguishes all remaining hope of the losing candidates that the final arbiter of election dispute would rule in their favor. In the first session of the hearing, Bambang Widjojanto, member of Anies-Muhaimin legal team, confidently stated that MK would annul the result of the 2024 presidential election, effectively overturning Prabowo-Gibran’s landslide election victory.
“The Constitutional Court will definitely annul the result of the president election resulting from the abuse of presidential authority, power and election organizer, as well as serious and widespread electoral fraud in the process,” said Bambang on Wednesday (27/3).
Meanwhile, Firman Jaya Daeli, member of Ganjar-Mahfud legal team, also believed that MK would grant their request after they presented additional evidence. “This additional evidence gives us more confidence and hope that our petition will be granted by the Court,” said Firman on Sunday (14/4).
The statements issued by the losing candidates’ legal team members are not merely claims. In the study of war, this is a form of battle strategy. Ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu in his famous book The Art of War, says: “If the soldiers are extremely anxious, desperate and downbeat, they cannot be empowered.”
In Sun Tzu’s view, having a commander who is able to boost the morale of the soldiers is key to achieving victory in a war. A commander who is able to motivate and inspire his soldiers will be able to focus their energy and determination more effectively. The commander’s words and actions can change the mood and influence the soldiers’ psychology enormously, leading to them fighting harder and more courageously.
In facing difficult situations, a commander who is able to reignite the spirit of his soldiers will be able to create a positive atmosphere. Soldiers will become more motivated and confident in accomplishing battle objectives. This ability can also help them overcome various challenges and obstacles, so they can stay focused and energized to fight and survive, even in the most desperate circumstances.
In other words, the claims by the losing pairs are like fuel to keep the “fire” burning, to strengthen both internal and external consolidation. Internally, it aims to maintain the morale of their legal teams, while externally this claim is used to rouse and maintain the fighting spirit of their supporters.
In this article, I will not examine further the communication strategies used by the losing sides. This article aims more toward understanding why the requests of both camps were comprehensively rejected by MK. First, we need to review the contents of each team’s petition.
The Anies-Muhaimin petition
Anies-Muhaimin’s petition contained two key points. First, accusations that there has been a betrayal of the Constitution and violation of the principles of a free and fair election. These are the key planks of their legal arguments, which make up three-quarters of the petition document they submitted to the court. The alleged constitutional violation is broken down into 11 points:
(1) The election commission (KPU) deliberately accepted the “illegal” nomination of Prabowo’s running mate Gibran, (2) intervention by those in power that undermined the independence of KPU, (3) nepotism by Team No 2, who received tacit assistance from the Office of the President, (4) appointment of caretaker regional heads to influence voters, (5) the mobilization of civil servants in the regions by caretaker regional heads, (6) involvement of state officials, (7) deployment of village chiefs, (8) the president’s meeting at the Palace with party chairmen of the Indonesia Onward Coalition (KIM) which supported Prabowo-Gibran, (9) intervention using the Constitutional Court, (10) misuse of social assistance in violation of the State Budget (APBN) Law and its impact on voting decisions, and (11) an increase in salaries and allowances for election organizers at a critical moment.
The second aspect relates to procedural violations, which presents eight points: (1) manipulation of final voter list or DPT, (2) ballot stuffing, (3) vote rigging, (4) vote buying or money politics, (5) multiple voting, (6) irregularities in polling stations, (7) children allowed to vote, and (8) fraud committed through IT system and online tabulation platform (Sirekap).