Prabowo Subianto, the 72-year-old former military leader, has had his election victory in Indonesia confirmed by the Constitutional Court. The court rejected petitions from his rivals, former governors Anies Baswedan and Ganjar Pranowo, who had sought his disqualification and a revote. Five of the eight judges ruled in favor of rejecting the petitions, while three gave dissenting opinions.
Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated that there was no legal basis to suggest systematic fraud or state intervention in the election. Defense Minister Prabowo’s victory was hailed as a victory for all Indonesians by his lawyer, Otto Hasibuan, who reaffirmed that Prabowo will take office in October.
Representatives from both former candidates have indicated their respect for the court’s decision. Senior Fellow Ian Wilson of the Indo-Pacific Research Center expressed no surprise at the court’s decision to uphold the status quo. However, he added that the ruling highlights how President Widodo’s administration has been able to navigate legal loopholes, potentially breaching regulations without facing consequences.
A key point of contention in the rival camps’ claims was the use of presidential influence to support Prabowo’s campaign through regional officials and social aid programs. The distribution of money and essential items was alleged to have swayed voters towards Prabowo, who won the election with 58% of the vote. Prabowo and Widodo’s administration have denied these allegations.
The court acknowledged an ethical violation in changing the rules to allow President Widodo’s son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, to become Prabowo’s running mate. However, they ruled that there was no evidence of nepotism behind the ruling. Political analyst Wasisto Raharjo Jati noted that reversing the previous decision on this issue would have been problematic for the court.
Despite the largely predictable outcome, the dissenting opinions from three judges were seen as a notable development. One of the dissenting judges, Arief Hidayat, argued that the president and state agencies lacked neutrality during the electoral process. Legal expert Titi Anggraini pointed out that these dissenting opinions weaken the legitimacy of the results and raise concerns about upholding fair and democratic elections in the future.
Analysts also believe that the Constitutional Court’s ruling will influence future local and regional elections in Indonesia. While there may be increased awareness of the potential misuse of state resources, scrutinizing such tactics at a more local level could be challenging. Ian Wilson cautioned that the methods used in this election could be repeated in the future, which would negatively impact Indonesia’s democracy.
The Constitutional Court’s decision is final and binding, leaving no further avenues for Prabowo’s rivals to challenge the election results. However, the dissenting opinions offer some vindication to their camps and supporters. While the status quo has been upheld, the moral victory for the rival camps is evident in the dissenting opinions, highlighting concerns about the use of state resources in elections.
