Phase of Determining Presidential Candidates

The trajectory of the nomination of presidential and vice-presidential candidates for the 2024 general election has entered a crucial phase.

Political communication is increasing in order to consolidate various interests. This gradual and continuous process goes from preliminary talks between parties, drawing public attention to the would-be candidates, building a coalition agreement to meet the nomination threshold and the declaration of the coalition to formalizing the pair of (presidential and vice-presidential) candidates.

The time span from now until the final seconds of October-November 2023 will be the busiest phase of political communication and negotiations. Surprises are also possible, potentially making the political process nonlinear.

Zopa strategy

The process of picking a presidential/vice-presidential candidate will show the face of each party. Bonnie N Field and Peter M Siavelis, in their writing, “Candidate Selection Procedures in Transitional Policies: A Research Note” (2008), stated that candidate selection was one of the important functions of the party. Traditions in the candidate-selection process reflect political institutionalization. However, current candidacy practices consider more magnetic figures, even if they come from outside the party, techniques for overcoming presidential threshold barriers and calculating upcoming opportunities to be in power.

There are three determining factors in the consolidation stage of party collaborations for the current presidential election. First, an indicator of strengthening public acceptance of a figure who will advance to the political contest. There are names that are getting popular and are experiencing confirmation in the minds of the public as future presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

The reflections of these names usually resonate in various citizen channels, such as in news frames in the mass media or in multiplatform discussions on social media. This is also detected through a variety of methodological approaches that uncover the dynamics of public perception of presidential candidates, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Not all actors who carry out persuasive strategies get a place in the "locker" of audience cognition. Popular names, such as Prabowo Subianto, Anies Baswedan and Ganjar Pranowo, as the top ones in the public's minds, were confirmed through various perception surveys.

Also read:

> Ganjar Tops Survey while Prabowo and Anies Fluctuate

> There is Still Hope for All Presidential Candidates

Other names, such as Ridwan Kamil, Erick Thohir, Muhaimin Iskandar, Airlangga Hartarto and Puan Maharani, also have their own electability positions in the middle or bottom board and are very likely to strengthen them if they find a favorable political-map change, or when positioned as cawapres (vice-presidential candidate). Public opinion regarding the presidential/vice-presidential candidates is of course progressing in stages, starting with information and random conversations, then forming a consolidated pattern, until finally it becomes solid as the public's choice and attitude. Second, elite political communication, which involves two important elements: namely, understanding and agreement. Even if party elites visit each other; stay in touch; or on political tours, compliment each other, on the front stage with their rhetoric, it will not necessarily lead to understanding and agreement.

Exploring the possibility for collaboration is usually determined by the meeting point of each interest. From a negotiation perspective, visits by elites must be interpreted as a zone of possible agreement (zopa) strategy. Zopa is a negotiating instrument that opens up areas that allow for meeting points from the ideals of the main proposal put forward by each negotiating party.

The negotiating parties certainly have the maximum offer, as well as the minimum point that can be tolerated to participate in the agreement. Parties must exercise options that allow them to fall from the ideal point of the bid and rise from the lowest point each party can tolerate. This strategy explains why NasDem Party (NasDem) finally met with Golkar Party and previously with Gerindra Party (National Awakening Party, PKB).

KOMPAS/HAS/RON

(left to right) Ganjar Pranowo, Prabowo Subianto, Anies Baswedan. The top three names in Kompas' national leadership survey.

Even so, Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) maneuvered to establish communication with Golkar. PKB does not want to be left behind. Apart from Gerindra, they also held political meetings with Golkar. Only the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) found it difficult to meet with the Democrats and PKS because there were psychological barriers between their main elites.

Many options are exchanged in this elite political-communication space, starting from big matters of nationality to the technicalities of winning strategies. At the level of elite interests, which are usually easy to understand but difficult to agree on, this includes the package for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. An example of the complexity occurs in the Koalisi Perubahan (Coalition for Change) driven by Nasdem, Democrats and PKS.

It is not easy to agree on who will be Anies Baswedan's running mate. Even so, the United Indonesia Coalition (KIB) experienced a dilemma when they had to decide on a pair's package name. Gerindra and PKB, although they have formed the Joint Secretariat for Awakening Indonesia Raya, have yet to agree on who will eventually become Prabowo’s running mate.

Another thing, which also has the potential to block or disband the coalition, is usually related to political financing schemes in elections. Uniting the diverse party resources in the midst of coalition patterns and traditions that often change partners is not easy. This cost-of-entry scheme is not a small number. Election costs are expensive, especially if the party's point-of-view in negotiations is not from the perspective of sacrifice and commitment, but that of profit. Proposals for power-sharing schemes in the future are also usually the subject of negotiations, which are not easy. On average, all want to be clear upfront, as part of a social-exchange scheme.

Also read:

> Public Opinion over 2024 Presidential Candidacy

> Doing Politics for the People

James A Wiggins and James Vander Zanden in their book Social Psychology (1996) elaborate their social-exchange theory: every action takes into account profit and loss, both material and nonmaterial; the parties consider a completed transaction to be profitable, even if it does not always have a maximum profit.

Profits in this perspective are not only material, but also nonmaterial, such as feelings of liking and sentiments that tend to satisfy the parties. It is in this context that the zopa strategy is implemented by the parties by creating options and opportunities to gain from each before they lock into a coalition agreement.

Third, stimulus-response among competing parties. Everyone is waiting for the positioning of the figure who will be the real candidate. So, whether or not the Coalition for Change is formed and who they support will certainly affect the map. Even so, with the KIB initiative and the potential of the Great Indonesia Awakening coalition, what will be the dynamics of the situation? Most likely, the coalition that is built will implement a two-stage strategy.

In the early stages, they announce only the presidential candidates, and the vice-presidential candidate is announced later before the deadline. PDI-P, because it has exceeded the presidential nomination threshold with 128 seats (22.26 percent) held in the House of Representatives, may announce their presidential candidate at the end of the period.

Affiliative boundaries

All current (political) forces have their own dilemmas that must be overcome. PDI-P has the dilemma of choosing between Puan Maharani or Ganjar Pranowo. PDI-P gave Megawati Soekarnoputri the prerogative to pick the presidential candidate. Thus, Megawati is at the top of the authority hierarchy for anyone who will advance to RI-1 and R1-2 from PDI-P.

This phenomenon presents a very strong affiliative barrier, especially since Megawati has repeatedly warned through her instructions that PDI-P cadres obey party rules, or leave!

According to Dennis Gouran in his article entitled “The Signs of Cognitive, Affiliative and Egocentric Constraints” (1998), affiliative boundaries mean that group members prefer to hold back rather than risk being rejected from the group. PDI-P cadres will refrain from disagreement with Mega if they do not want to be labeled as deviants.

Also read:

> Enigma of the Presidential Nomination in 2024

If you look at this situation, it is psychologically advantageous for Puan because the main PDI-P elite who are Megawati's circle will fully support her, if a presidential ticket is given to her. However, PDI-P has a dilemma with Puan's electability, which until now is still low, while Ganjar is more accepted, liked and has the potential to be elected. This dilemma is the main factor in why PDI-P may announce its presidential candidate after the main competitors, especially the parties in the Coalition for Change, who position themselves to be or not to be in a coalition partnership with the pair it is nominating.

The KIB combined with Golkar (85 seats), PAN (44 seats) and PPP (19 seats) with 148 seats on paper already pocketed one presidential candidate ticket. However, politics is not mathematics! KIB has a dilemma with the electability of a figure that will be put forward if the figure comes from within the three partners. With its extraordinary tradition of political communication flexibility, Golkar has the potential to swing to the available axes.

However, in fact, Golkar has the potential to change history by daring to nominate its candidate, as well as turning on the domino effect of presidential nominations to increase Golkar's vote in legislative elections, on condition that its coalition partners approve.

The people must have options for the national leader they will elect on voting day.

The Coalition for Change axis currently driven by Nasdem (59 seats), Democrats (54 seats) and PKS (50 seats) has a dilemma in choosing its running mate, whether Agus Harimurti Yudhoyono (AHY), Khofifah Indar Parawansa (governor of East Java) or some other figure.

This dilemma is not an easy one, because of the serious threat that the coalition could disband if it does not agree. A similar thing happened in the Greater Indonesia Awakening Partnership (Gerindra-PKB). If Prabowo does not take Muhaimin as running mate, will PKB still want to join the coalition? Perhaps, if there are other benefits agreed upon between them.

The decisive phase must of course be answered with a final decision. Not always ideal, but it requires sociopolitical accountability for every choice that will be declared.

What is clear: let the candidacy run democratically. There should be no ways to take advantage of political, legal and economic power to suppress the emergence of coalitions carrying the presidential/vice-presidential candidates. Political elites must be able to present the principle of competitive elections, not fake elections, where the winner has been set in a scenario from the start through arbitrary competition. The people must have options for the national leader they will elect on voting day.

KOMPAS/WISNU WIDIANTORO

Gun Gun Heryanto

Gun Gun Heryanto, Lecturer in Political Communication at UIN Jakarta, executive director of The Political Literacy Institute.

This article was translated by Kurniawan Siswo.