Candidate Scenarios for 2019 Presidential Election
Everything remains up in the air, and it can be said that what has happened by the end of the registration period will determine the coalitions and candidates for the 2019 presidential election. The last-minute changes that occurred during the Jakarta gubernatorial election will likely happen again.
Over the next two weeks, the brouhaha on the political scene will be colored by various moves to determine the candidate pairs that will contest the 2019 presidential election.
According to the schedule that the General Elections Commission (KPU) has set, the candidate registration period for the presidential election will run from Aug. 4 to 10. Various ways of testing campaign tactics and strategies were prepared long ago. Lobbying and political dialogue have taken place.
However, everything remains up in the air, and it can be said that what has happened by the end of the registration period will determine the coalitions and candidates for the 2019 presidential election. The last-minute changes that occurred during the Jakarta gubernatorial election will likely happen again.
Politically, taking such decisions during “injury time” seems reasonable. That is the art of decision-making in politics. It is full of negotiations and not infrequently, intrigues. However, in the context of a sovereign state, pitting the very fate of the nation – the matter of who will be president – on practical political negotiations is simply not ideal. We must build a more institutional and definite system for nominating presidential candidates.
Awaiting Constitutional Court ruling
In this context, we should consider adopting the candidate nomination process for the United States presidential election, which is more institutionalized from party conventions to the primaries (when registered voters elect a party’s presidential candidate). Through such an institutionalized nomination system, it would be easier to determine the presidential candidates. In fact, the participation and role of voters in determining presidential candidates are clearer in the primary system.
Judging from our direct presidential elections, which have been held three times in 2004, 2009 and 2014, the number of presidential candidate pairs has tended to decline. There were five candidate pairs in 2004, which dropped to three in 2009, and only two in 2014. I personally do not expect this to decline further to just one pair in 2019. Unfortunately, having a single presidential candidate pair for next year\'s election is not impossible.
This is easily understood, since aside from the provisions in Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections, the one thing that political parties are waiting for to determine their coalitions and presidential candidate pairs is the Constitutional Court’s (MK) two rulings on the judicial review of the General Elections Law. These rulings concern the presidential threshold and the maximum two terms for the offices of president and vice president.
The latter ruling will determine whether Vice President Jusuf Kalla may or may not be Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s running mate, and thus affect the Jokowi coalition’s unity and strategy for reelection. The petition to review the presidential threshold, if this is approved and granted before the registration for presidential election candidates closes on Aug. 10, presents the first scenario: many candidates contesting the presidential election, as happened in 2004, when Presidential Regulation No. 23/2003 stipulated a presidential threshold of 3 percent of all seats in the House of Representatives, or 5 percent of all votes cast in the regional elections.
However, seeing how the Constitutional Court is considering the presidential threshold issue, I am pessimistic that the court will be wise enough to see that they must issue a decision quickly in order to deliver a decisive message on saving the Constitution. In fact, even though only a few weeks remain until the candidate registration, there is still enough time if the court intends to issue an immediate decision.
The Constitutional Court has taken less than two weeks to issue a ruling in at least two cases. The first concerned the requirements for nominating a presidential candidate as petitioned by the fourth president, Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid. The petition was submitted on Apr. 19, 2004 and a ruling was issued on Apr. 23, 2004. The court took only five days to reach a decision. The second concerned the use of ID cards in verifying voter registration as petitioned by Refly Harun. The petition was submitted on June 24, 2009 and a ruling was issued on July 6, 2009. The court needed only 12 days to reach its decision. The ruling was issued just two days before the presidential election, which was not a problem, but was instead a critical part of the solution to protect voters in the 2009 presidential election.
Groups that disagreed with having numerous presidential candidates argued that the cost of the presidential election would rise as a result of the greater potential for a second ballot. In response to this argument, I say that rejecting a second presidential ballot on the basis of cost is unconstitutional. The 1945 Constitution anticipates a two-round system and therefore, it cannot be removed from the Constitution simply upon the reason of cost.
Moreover, assuming that fewer candidates would mean lower costs is also not necessarily true according to calculations. We cannot turn a blind eye to the potential for "candidate buying" amid the political parties’ nomination process. Fewer presidential candidates could very well mean more expenses, because candidates must buy more political parties to join their coalition.
Furthermore, our experience with only two presidential candidate pairs in 2014 saw that the potential for conflict was even greater, as it all came down to a head-to-head race between the two camps. The impact of the conflict is still felt today, ahead of the presidential election that will fall five years from the 2014 election. The cost of such nationwide conflicts, even though they are not always calculated materially, should be viewed as a "political cost", which is not cheap.
Scenario of a single candidate
The second scenario is seeing three candidate pairs, as happened in 2009. The current buzz is the possibility of a third axis emerging. However, judging from the remaining time to registration, unless the Jokowi camp splits – for example because of a disagreement over his running mate – it appears that there is less possibility for a three-candidate scenario today than there was in 2009.
The third scenario is seeing two candidate pairs, as happened in 2014. This would require the Constitutional Court to either dismiss the petition to review the presidential threshold or fail in reaching a decision before the candidate registration deadline on Aug. 10.
The fourth scenario, which should be avoided at all costs and has never happened, is seeing only a single candidate pair. Having a single candidate pair for the 2019 presidential election is not impossible, given that President Jokowi still enjoys high electability and that the other camps have unclear challengers. Moreover, unlike the earlier Presidential Election Law, Election Law No. 7/2017 allows for the possibility of a presidential candidate running against an “empty ticket”.
Article 229 Paragraph (2) and Article 235 of the 2017 Election Law regulates the steps the KPU must take if only a single presidential candidate pair emerges. To be sure, Article 235 Paragraph (6) stipulates that in the case of only one candidate pair, then "the stages of the election shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of this law".
The problem is, the context of this fourth scenario is general and not detailed. The fourth scenario of a single presidential candidate pair only raises many issues and legal loopholes, indicates a downgrade of democracy for the 2019 presidential election and will ultimately lower the legitimacy of the elected president, particularly if the single candidate pair loses to the empty ticket, as happened in the Makassar mayoral election. As the emergence of a single presidential candidate pair is not impossible in the recent dynamics on the political scene, the KPU’s political decision-making machine should prepare detailed rules in anticipation of a single-candidate scenario.
I am still hoping that the Constitution will be upheld. This means that the people will be provided with the best choices for their president. Therefore, offering just two presidential candidates, never mind just one, is not an ideal situation, and should be avoided. However, let us watch and wait to see which presidential candidate scenario will come to pass on Aug. 10, when the candidate registration closes. It can only be hoped that the 2019 presidential election maintains the spirit of a fair and democratic direct election.
Denny Indrayana, Constitutional Law Professor; Gadjah Mada University (UGM), Melbourne University Law School