Why Megawati lost
Why Megawati lost
As the vote count rolls on it has become clear that Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono and his running mate Jusuf Kalla are going to
win in a landslide and lead the nation for the next five years.
The results are showing a stunning defeat for the incumbent
President, Megawati Soekarnoputri. By Tuesday evening, with
approximately two-thirds of the estimated 120 million votes
counted, the Susilo/Jusuf Kalla pair are in total command and
lead by more than 20 percentage points.
These numbers are likely to hold, especially because in the
heavily populated provinces of Central Java, East Java and North
Sumatra, which have traditionally been bases of Megawati
loyalists, Susilo is leading.
Now the question becomes, why did Megawati lose, despite all
her efforts during the last 10 weeks to get reelected, to the
point of maximizing the facilities offered by the office of the
presidency? This interesting question will likely keep a great
number of political analysts and research institutions busy in
the months and years to come. However, at this early stage we
would like to make a few preliminary remarks that perhaps could
help reveal the drastic socio-political changes that have been
taking place in Indonesian society.
Apparently, the majority of the Indonesian electorate were on
Monday expressing their ethical rejection of a culture of
permissiveness that the Megawati leadership (with the assistance
of her husband, Taufik Kiemas) has been spreading, not only
within the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP), but
throughout the important agencies of the Indonesian government.
Corruption by political leaders and government officials,
perfected during the later years of President Soeharto's tenure
and practiced almost blatantly during President Megawati's
administration, has indeed been a constant problem in Indonesia.
Because of the cynical attitude of those leaders of PDIP, the
majority party professing to adhere to the basic principles of
democracy, social justice and transparency, the Indonesian public
was forced to conclude that enough was enough.
Another significant factor in Megawati's defeat was probably
the limited intellectual weight of her leadership and the poor
quality of her government's policy decisions, though of course,
there are always exceptions to the rule. The organized dialog of
the presidential candidates with selected panel members last
week, televised nationwide, showed in an embarrassing manner,
that Megawati simply could not fathom the questions posed to her.
On the other hand, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono displayed an
impressive intellectual aptitude by presenting coherent
statements on a wide range of issues.
The preliminary results of the Sept. 20 presidential election
clearly reflected the strong yearning for change that exists
among Indonesians, as well as the prevailing opinion that this
nation deserves leadership, which adheres to moral principles,
imbued with a more respectable intellectual quality. Although the
full and detailed results of the Sept. 20 runoff presidential
election have not been made public, it is not too early to point
out that drastic and significant changes have taken place,
affecting the social psychology of Indonesian society, with far-
reaching political consequences.
In the years to come, this country's new leadership should
constantly remember that, politically speaking, the majority of
the Indonesian populace has reached a level of independence that
is not easily swayed by massive public relations campaigns, nor
by clever money politics. At the same time, however, this new
development in the form of a newly found socio-political
independence constitutes a factor that the new leadership under
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Jusuf Kalla will have to reckon
with.