Opini

Unfinished Business: Jokowi’s Final Attempts and the Lame Duck Period in Indonesia

Synopsis

The central argument of this essay is that President Joko Widodo’s actions during the lame duck period, instead of adhering to democratic norms, represent a strategic disregard for the ethical expectations typically associated with the end of a presidential term. The essay asserts that these actions—marked by hurried legislative processes, last-minute budget allocations for the IKN, and controversial cabinet reshuffles—are focused on securing political legacies and maneuvering rather than facilitating a smooth transition of power.

 —– 

Oleh : Ali Maksum*

OPINION, EDUNEWS.ID – As President Joko Widodo’s second and final term draws to a close, Indonesia faces an unusual political moment, one that underscores a deeper issue within its democratic fabric. In many established democracies, the term “lame duck” refers to the waning days of an outgoing leader’s tenure, during which their political power and influence are significantly diminished. The term was first introduced by veteran British politician Horace Walpole in 1761 to describe brokers who failed to pay on the London Stock Exchange. However, it gained popularity in the United States Congress on January 14, 1863, where it referred to “broken down politicians.” This period is traditionally marked by restraint, allowing the incoming administration the space to shape future policies without the interference of a leader whose time has passed. However, the Indonesian experience under President Jokowi seems to challenge this democratic norm, raising concerns about the health and sustainability of the country’s democracy.

The Significance of the Lame Duck Period

Conceptually, lame duck serves as a crucial mechanism to ensure a smooth and ethical transition of power. It embodies the principle that an outgoing leader should not impose long-term policies or decisions that bind their successor, especially when their mandate from the people is effectively over. This period is characterized by a certain political humility, where the outgoing administration acknowledges its reduced legitimacy and steps back from making strategic decisions that could have profound implications on the nation’s future.

According to Swiss political expert Mark Schelker (2017), the lame duck period can be used for internal evaluation and consolidation among political actors. The clear purpose is to generate recommendations for the next government. More fundamentally, political expert Kyle Haynes from Webster University (2012) argues that the lame duck period is not just about political etiquette; it is about safeguarding democratic institutions and ensuring that the will of the people, as expressed in the most recent election, is respected. This means that during the lame duck period, an incumbent should refrain from making strategic decisions that could destabilize the political landscape. If an incumbent disregards the importance of this period, according to Schelker (2017), it could lead to an abuse of power and potentially trigger corrupt actions.

Historical Examples of Unethical Lame Duck Actions

The question is, are there controversies related to unethical actions during lame duck periods? The answer is certainly, yes! For example, in 1984, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, the father of Justin Trudeau, pressured the Governor General to appoint 200 members of the Liberal Party to high-paying, important positions, including senators, judges, and various executive roles, including those in state-owned enterprises. This move naturally provoked a strong public reaction, as well as from other political elements. In the United States, a similarly contentious event occurred when, in his final days in office in January 2001, Bill Clinton issued 140 presidential pardons to his political associates. There are many other examples, including those from the UK, Venezuela, and elsewhere. However, these instances should not be emulated; rather, they should serve as lessons for Indonesia. If a lame duck or de-missionary period is misused, it can lead to political upheaval and reactions that may destabilize the political landscape and harm democracy.

 Jokowi’s Unconventional Approach to the Lame Duck Period

In this context, Jokowi has taken an unconventional approach to the lame duck period. Contrary to the conventional understanding of a lame duck period, President Jokowi’s actions in the twilight of his presidency have raised eyebrows. Instead of embracing a more subdued role, he has continued to pursue and enact significant policy decisions that some argue are detrimental to the long-term health of Indonesia’s democracy. These actions, which appear to disregard the ethical expectations of a lame duck, have sparked a debate about the implications for Indonesia’s democratic future.

Policy Concerns and Cabinet Reshuffles

First, Jokowi’s concern on the new capital city (IKN). On June 2024, just only four months in office, through its ministers, the Jokowi administration continues to request additional budget allocations from the DPR for the development of the IKN, a responsibility that should rightfully fall under the authority of the next president, namely Prabowo. Almost all ministries involved in the development of the new capital city (IKN) protested against the Ministry of Finance for cutting their budgets amid reckless government spending. Of course, among the ministries requesting additional budgets are the Coordinating Ministry for Maritime and Investment Affairs, the Ministry of Investment/Indonesia Investment Coordinating Board, the Minister of National Development Planning/Head of Bappenas, and the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (Bloomberg Technoz, June 14, 2024).

Second, this period has also seen a push to swiftly discuss and ratify several significant pieces of legislation, including the Asset Confiscation Bill (RUU Perampasan Aset), the National Police Bill (RUU POLRI), the Indonesian Armed Forces Bill (RUU TNI), the Constitutional Court Bill (RUU Mahkamah Konstitusi), the State Ministry Bill (RUU Kementerian Negara), and the Broadcasting Bill (RUU Penyiaran). The most controversial of these is undoubtedly the Regional Elections Bill (RUU Pilkada), which triggered nationwide protests, marking the resurgence of the people’s spirit in defending democracy, which seemed to be at risk of collapse. Jokowi’s intention was clear: to secure a path for his youngest son, Kaesang Pangarep, to run in the 2024 local elections. Recently, again, Jokowi sparked controversy by allowing the export of sea sand, which had been banned for over 20 years, although he argued that only sediment was being exported. The sudden and controversial discussion of the bill in the DPR clearly indicates that Indonesian politicians, including President Jokowi, are disregarding the norms associated with the lame duck period.

Lastly, what makes this legislative rush even more concerning is the fact that it is happening alongside last-minute cabinet reshuffles initiated by President Jokowi. In August 2024, just months before his term ends, Jokowi orchestrated another reshuffle, bringing in new ministers and deputy ministers. This reshuffle was particularly controversial because it seemed to reflect not just a reorganization of the government but a maneuver to secure political allegiances. One of the more curious aspects of this reshuffle is that some of the newly appointed ministers, such as Bahlil Lahadalia (re-positioned) and Syaifullah Yusuf, who are widely seen as Jokowi’s political proxies, are expected to be in office for only a very brief period—potentially just one month—until the new administration takes over. This has raised further questions about the motivations behind these appointments. Many observers see this as a calculated move to accommodate political allies, either as a reward for loyalty or as part of a broader strategy to position them for future political roles under the next administration.

Recommendations for Safeguarding Democracy

To safeguard Indonesia’s democracy during transitional periods, several recommendations should be considered. First and foremost, there needs to be a clearer legal and ethical framework that defines the limits of presidential power during the lame duck period. This framework should outline specific actions that an outgoing president is prohibited from taking, particularly those that have long-term implications for the country’s governance and democratic health. Secondly, the role of civil society and the media in holding the government accountable during this period cannot be overstated. Civil society organizations should be empowered to challenge and scrutinize decisions that may undermine the democratic process. Lastly, the president-elect should be given greater access to decision-making processes during the transition. This inclusion would ensure that any major policy decisions reflect the incoming administration’s vision and are not merely the last-minute impositions of an outgoing leader. Such a practice would also help to foster a smoother and more cooperative transition, ultimately benefiting the nation as a whole.

Indeed, with such a short time left in Jokowi’s presidency, the reshuffles, alongside the hasty push for legislative changes, signal a focus on legacy-building and political maneuvering rather than ensuring a smooth power transition. This undoubtedly poses a threat to democracy. However, given the current situation, it seems that politicians find themselves in a difficult position, opting to play it safe. Observing Jokowi’s behavior thus far, it is clear that he has not shifted his approach, despite heavy criticism, as though there is unfinished business that will persist until his term officially ends on October 20, 2024. The people of Indonesia can only hope that such actions will not be repeated in the future.

 

*Ali Maksum, Lecturer of International Relations Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Alamat email Anda tidak akan dipublikasikan. Ruas yang wajib ditandai *

Kerjasama dan Mitra silakan menghubungi 085171117123

Kirim Berita

  • redaksi@edunews.id
  • redaksiedunews@gmail.com

ALAMAT

  • Branch Office : Gedung Graha Pena Lt 5 – Regus – 520 Jl. Urip Sumoharjo No. 20, Pampang, Makassar Sulawesi Selatan 90234
  • Head Office : Plaza Aminta Lt 5 – Blackvox – 504 Jl. TB Simatupang Kav. 10 RT.6/14 Pondok Pinang Kebayoran Lama, Jakarta Selatan 12310. Telepon : 0411 366 2154 – 0851-71117-123

 

To Top