Orchestration’s Unstable Coalition

Ten months ahead of the 2024 elections, the coalition configurations between political parties have yet to show any signs of established alliance.

A number of coalitions were declared early but have since stagnated and staggered toward finalization, with the shrouding uncertainties stemming particularly from the suspended nomination schemes of presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

Even the United Indonesia Coalition (KIB) and the Great Indonesia Awakening Coalition (KKIR), which are seen as relatively more plausible alliances between major political powers, do not seem to be confident yet as they look to the idea of merging forces. This idea is claimed to be condoned and orchestrated by the Presidential Palace executive power.

Also read:

> Grand Coalition Becomes Political Elite’s New Magnet

> Signal for the Formation of a Large Alliance Strengthens

The volatile dynamics in coalitions has been triggered not only by the absence of an electoral-dominant presidential candidate, but also by the lack of big ideas and vision that would be able to bind the interests of coalescing political parties.

Geoffrey Pridham (1983) points to three determinant factors in forming a coalition. First, the historical-ideological factor. Second, the factor of conformity in vision, mission and government platform. Third, the factor of power-oriented pragmatism (office seeking).

With reference to Pridham's logic in the context of the United Kingdom’s post-World War II political situation, the dynamics of coalitions between political parties in Indonesia shows more about interest-oriented pragmatism.

Thus, it is understandable why the negotiation process to form a coalition is usually tough and why it is difficult to find a compromise. This is because the political communication only develops into a tug-of-war of interests, "compensation negotiations" and office-seeking orientation among prospective coalition members.

Government factionalism

In later developments, strongly rooted pragmatic politics potentially leads to factionalism among government-supporting political parties.

David Altman (2015) says the solidity of a coalition in a multiparty democratic and presidential system-based government generally rested on five main factors.

First, ideological affinity between political forces. Second, the level of public satisfaction with the president's performance (the president's public-approval rate). Third, the extent of political power affiliated with the president. Fourth, the proximity to the next election. Fifth, justice implementation in coalition agreements.

Speculative information suggests the planned move stemmed from the disappointment among government political parties that the PDI-P has been seen as too dominant in the shared pie of power.

Of these five factors, President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo's second-term administration is currently still able to maintain the first four factors. It means the solidity of Jokowi's government seems to be maintained because the affiliated political parties share ideological conformity and they represent an overwhelming support of up to 70 percent of parliamentary (House of Representatives) seats. Public satisfaction is still maintained ahead of the 2024 elections.

However, regarding the fifth factor, there are indications of strained communication marked by the emergence of an idea to form a grand coalition among five political parties. They are also seeking to invite the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) as the highest "political shareholder" in Jokowi's government. Speculative information suggests the planned move stemmed from the disappointment among government political parties that the PDI-P has been seen as too dominant in the shared pie of power.

Also read:

> Enigma of the Presidential Nomination in 2024

> Sharpening Coalition’s Agenda

It is widely reported that a chairman of one of the political parties in the planned grand coalition is campaigning covertly for a counterstrategy to ensure the PDI-P is no longer the "main political shareholder" in the 2024-2029 government.

This perception of the dominant role and injustice in the distribution of the power pie seems to underscore the collective perspective that the current government coalition is maintained within an inequality-based framework. This situation has given rise to a maneuver by other political parties in the current government to seek a new political equilibrium.

That is why none of the political parties in Jokowi's government, such as Golkar Party, Nation Awakening Party (PKB), National Mandate Party (PAN) or United Development Party (PPP), have shown willingness to openly approach PDI-P for coalition extension. From a realist perspective, this reluctance can be interpreted as a tendency to oppose PDI-P, even though they have never showed it openly.

Among the government-supporting political parties, Nasdem has been the only one as of today with the courage to break away from PDI-P. Meanwhile, Gerindra Party, which has been intensively consolidating the planned grand coalition, seems to be harboring hope for political negotiations and compromises with PDI-P.

Thus, this planned grand coalition seems to offer last-ditch leverage for the government’s political parties to try once again to form a potential alliance with PDI-P. However, they are keen to carry out a partnership with the hope that the nomination of presidential candidate is determined by the grand coalition endorsed by the Presidential Palace currently accounting for an aggregate 49.3 percent of power.

In other words, the grand coalition discourse is a "siege strategy" to force the PDI-P to not only be willing to cede its golden ticket (of picking up a presidential candidate) but also resigned to accepting if what is left for it is a slot for vice-presidential candidate should it join what will be the proposed "super-grand coalition".

Poor ideas and solutions

Nevertheless, it is not easy to bring together the egos of big political powers. Negotiations for the slot of presidential candidate will almost certainly be marred by clashing interests among political elites for the vice-presidential nomination. This will threaten the solidity of the grand coalition. If not bound by a big vision, the coalition of many big political forces will only give birth to an unhealthy pattern of relations and reciprocal suspicion, with everyone clamoring for each other’s fall.

A coalition built on pragmatic short-lived interest tends to be fragile. A lesson learned from Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s thrust to power in 2004 and Jokowi in 2014 is the size of a coalition does not guarantee running mates’ victory in a presidential election in post-Reform Indonesia.

It is not easy to bring together the egos of big political powers.

Therefore, coalition discussions, which are currently under the spotlight nationwide, should not be based on superficial logic, political retaliation-motivated and short-lived economic-political profiteering calculations. A coalition should be truly oriented toward developing substantive ideas, which offer policy improvement based on the governance studies and evaluations of sitting government.

The promoted slogans "continuity" or "change" regarding development programs must be elaborated in a more concrete way so the people can honor their rights properly to choose who is the worthy leader for them.

History has evolved such that it is a coalition with narratives, ideas and judgments built on rationality and common sense that will have a greater possibility of winning the hearts, minds and voices of the people as legitimate to succeed the post-2024 national leadership mandate.

ARSIP AHMAD KHOIRUL UMAM

Ahmad Khoirul Umam

Ahmad Khoirul Umam, Lecturer in Political Science & International Studies at Paramadina University, South Jakarta; executive director of Institute for Democracy and Strategic Affairs, South Jakarta

This article was translated by Musthofid.