The stages of the 2024 General Elections have begun. We are currently in the registration phase for legislative candidates for the Indonesian People’s Representative Council (DPR RI), Provincial, District/City DPRD, and the Regional Representative Council (DPD). Meanwhile, the registration phase for the presidential-vice presidential candidates will start in October 2023. However, the political climate in the country has already started heating up.
The temperature rise of politics began when political parties started to reveal the names that they would put forth as presidential candidates. It is predicted, or feared, that the 2024 Presidential Election will be very heated, even brutal, due to the contagion effect from the 2017 Jakarta Local Election. Will it be the case?
Indeed, whatever happens, elections and the transition of power are inevitable in a democratic country. Without it, there is no democracy. However, the problem lies in developing countries, or those where democratic traditions are not yet firmly rooted, elections and power transitions always become a gamble. A gamble for the future of democracy itself.
Because, those who vie for power through a democratic system are not only those who love and believe that democracy is the best or most suitable system. There are also those who are antidemocratic, who want to change the democratic system to another one, who participate and exploit democracy for different purposes. The proponents of the Caliphate, for example, endorse a system they advocate for via a route they detest or consider haram. This means, the power gained through democracy could potentially be used to kill or corrupt democracy.
This fact is demonstrated by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in their book, How Democracies Die. The book presents research results from various countries across continents whose democratic systems have been corrupted or killed by power obtained through democracy. The issue is, we don’t yet have an early warning system to identify antidemocratic figures participating in the democratic process.
Fortunately, from their research, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt were able to formulate key indicators that can be used as measuring tools. The assumption is, if a figure carries these key indicators, they have the potential to act and behave anti-democratically, to corrupt democracy, or even kill democracy, even though the power they hold is obtained through democratic means. The message is clear: such a figure is unfit to be chosen as a leader.
Four Key Indicators
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt have provided four indicators to examine the degree of anti-democratic behavior in an individual, particularly in this context, an individual vying for power through democratic means, such as an election. I have adopted these four key indicators as a guide to making choices in the 2024 Election.
The first indicator relates to issues of intolerance and its escalation. The escalation of intolerance could manifest as hatred, hostility, radicalism, extremism, and even terrorism.
Indeed, there may genuinely be intolerant figures in the race. However, this indicator is not exclusively applied to them, but also to their advocates or supporters. Even if a person is tolerant individually, if they are backed by intolerant groups, they can be classified as part of the anti-democratic force. Those who allow or never reject the strengthening of intolerant groups are also included in this category. The politicization of religion and identity fall under this indicator.
The second indicator relates to the recognition of democratic rules. An individual, or groups of power that are contestants or stakeholders in the election, fall into the anti-democracy category if what they do undermines the credibility of the democratic system’s implementation. Viewing the election as illegitimate if the results do not match their expectations is part of this indicator. Statements we often hear like “I can only be defeated by cheating” or “Because the election was rigged, I lost” or “I was thwarted” are simple illustrations of anti-democratic behavior.
In essence, being unprepared for loss is not a part of democracy. It becomes anti-democratic and has the potential to decay democracy if this unpreparedness to lose is escalated into a movement to cancel (the result of) the election — which could potentially incite chaos.
The third indicator pertains to respecting other contestants. Disrespecting political opponents is part of the anti-democratic indicator. This can intertwine with the first indicator. For instance, labeling opponents as foreign agents or shared enemies based on religion and identity is considered seeds of anti-democracy that could ignite hatred and hostility.
The fourth indicator relates to the issue of civil liberties. This is deemed a key indicator, for without civil liberties, democracy becomes problematic. Therefore, individuals or groups that tend to dislike civil liberties fall into the anti-democracy category with the potential to decay democracy.
These four key indicators were compiled by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt to prevent anti-democratic forces from internally decaying democracy. In the context of Indonesia, for example, if intolerant groups are given the stage to wield power, it could jeopardize our future diversity; if the proponents of the caliphate are given the opportunity to rule, it could endanger the future of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI).
At the very least, with these four key indicators, we can determine who is not suitable to be chosen as a president. Why should we scrutinize “the unsuitable” ones first? This approach is solely to “discard the worst” initially, ensuring we don’t make a wrong choice in the voting booth. Hopefully, in the 2024 elections, there won’t be any presidential candidates who possess these four key indicators.