Saiful Mujani Speaks Out After Criticism Over Calling to Oust Prabowo

Political analyst Saiful Mujani has spoken out following his viral statement calling for consolidation to oust President Prabowo Subianto. The Professor of Political Science at UIN Syarif Hidayatullah emphasised that his remarks do not constitute treason but rather a form of political engagement.

Saiful explained that the statement was made at an event titled “Halal bihalal for observers before being disciplined”.

“The question is whether my words can be called treason? I affirm that it is not treason, but political engagement, namely a political stance or opinion expressed on political issues in front of many people. The politics in that event mainly related to President Prabowo’s performance,” Mujani said in a written statement on Tuesday (7/4).

He explained that a political stance is one level below political participation or action. Political participation, he said, is the core of democracy. Mujani stated that there is no democracy without political participation.

“Political participation or actions aimed at the public interest take many forms. For example, voting in elections, campaigning, donating to parties or candidates, participating in political actions like demonstrations, strikes, sabotage, and so on, done peacefully. Peacefully ousting the president is political participation. That is democracy,” he said.

He explained that political stances and actions are part of the rights of every citizen and are guaranteed by the constitution. Mujani said his expressed stance is a manifestation of freedom of expression or opinion.

“Is a political stance treason? If a political stance in the form of verbal statements and gatherings protected by the constitution is considered treason, then treason is guaranteed by the UUD. Of course not, and therefore a political stance is not treason, which is legally prohibited,” he said.

He also explained the reason for stating the political stance to remove President Prabowo. Mujani said that at the event, he spoke at the end. Mujani drew conclusions after several people had spoken before him.

According to him, all speakers gave evaluative views on Prabowo’s performance. Specifically, they pressured Prabowo’s statement about disciplining observers based on intelligence information.

He said Prabowo also accused observers of not liking the government’s success, being funded by foreigners, and being unpatriotic.

“Not long after the president’s statement, Andre Yunus was doused with acid. We interpret this violence as the translation of state apparatus under the president’s statement that observers will be disciplined based on intelligence information,” he said.

He said Prabowo’s words about disciplining observers have a sensitive meaning for him as an 80s student who experienced repressive situations.

“We interpret what happened to Andre Yunus could happen to us observers. Therefore, the theme of the halal bihalal is ‘observers before being disciplined’,” he said.

In addition, he assessed Prabowo’s statement as part of many other statements by Prabowo that are considered unpresidential.

According to him, a presidential president is one who is inclusive, accepts diversity of aspirations and interests in a republic, and acts beyond partisan politics.

He said Prabowo’s lack of presidential stature has been evident since his inauguration when he emphasised that Indonesian democracy must be characteristically Indonesian. According to him, that statement recalls the New Order’s claims with the term Pancasila democracy.

“Prabowo from the start has threatened the existence of Indonesian democracy as regulated in the UUD. I am worried Prabowo will change the amended UUD and return to the old 1945 UUD. He is not presidential in understanding our current legitimate state basis,” he said.

After that, he said Prabowo’s decisions many reflect incompetence. Among them in composing cabinet members. The promise to achieve 8 percent economic growth is seen as lacking steps towards it.

Then, policies that more emphasise populist spending like MBG, the red-white cooperative, expansion of TNI territorial areas.

“Involving a lot of TNI in civilian areas, no connection is seen to that growth rate. Prabowo just talks and doesn’t understand what he is talking about. He is incompetent,” he said.

He said Prabowo is indeed a president produced by elections, but for him, it is autocracy through undemocratic electoral mechanisms (electoral autocracy). For Mujani, Prabowo is generally without authority and incompetent, thus calling for his ouster.

“How to oust him? Through general elections in 2029. I am worried that in the next 3.5 years Indonesia will get worse and split. It must be hastened,” he said.

In addition, it could be through impeachment initiated by the DPR. But, according to him, that is almost impossible because the DPR is entirely under Prabowo’s control.

Therefore, he said, the alternative way is through people power. Mass pressure like in 1966, 1998. The masses pressure and Prabowo steps down like Suharto did on 20 May 1998.

“This movement at least to delegitimise Prabowo who is not presidential, and strengthen the mass opposition, and at least will be more prepared to enter 2029 if the people can be patient enough to wait until 2029,” he said.

When confirmed separately, Cabinet Secretary Teddy Indra Wijaya said he was not yet aware of Saiful Mujani’s statement.

“I have a lot of work, I haven’t seen what he said,” Teddy said at the Presidential Palace Complex in Jakarta on Tuesday (7/4).

Besides himself, he mentioned that President of the Republic of Indonesia Prabowo Subianto is also busy with more important matters. He said Prabowo is focused on more strategic things.

“Especially the president, the president is handling big things, focusing on more strategic matters,” he said.

Besides Teddy, Prabowo’s cabinet ranks like Fahr