Smoke and Mirrors, and Indonesian Politics
As Indonesia rapidly approaches its executive and legislative general elections in less than eight months, the political landscape has been undergoing notable shifts, with three prominent figures emerging at the forefront of public support. Ganjar Pranowo (born 1968) backed by the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP); Anies Rasyid Baswedan (born 1969) representing the National Democratic Party (Nasdem) and its coalition; and Prabowo Subianto (born 1951) supported by the Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra), are the names currently dominating the provisional tallies. Intriguingly, the popularity of these candidates has proven to be fluid, with fluctuating standings observed in various surveys. Amidst this dynamic backdrop, two names are currently embroiled in a neck-and-neck race: Ganjar and Prabowo.
In the framework of surveys conducted by several leading survey and research institutions in Indonesia, Prabowo’s popularity surpasses that of Ganjar among the Generation Z population (born between 1996 and 2010). At least, the Litbang Kompas survey indicates this trend. Various mass media outlets have attempted to uncover the possible reasons behind Prabowo’s popularity among Generation Z. BBC Indonesia presents a series of analyses based on the opinions of Generation Z themselves. Essentially, there are two strong factors contributing to Prabowo’s popularity: first, the lack of historical experience regarding the 1998 period of unrest, and second, Prabowo’s fresh persona on social media, where he appears humorous, often accompanied by friendly interactions with animals.
The first issue is quite serious, considering Prabowo’s prominent military role during the 1998 unrest, where he was directly or indirectly involved in the conflict. This remains the biggest obstacle hindering support from the pre-1996 generation. There is an historical consciousness attached to it. However, the post-1996 generation, for better or for worse, does not share this collective memory. The second issue may not appear crucial, but it strongly contributes to the formation of Prabowo’s new persona in front of the younger public untouched by the collective memory of the 1998 unrest. Cats and horses have cemented a new image of Prabowo, seen as humorous and humane. Both analyses hold true in reality.
The mass media does not stop at analysing reality. It is not uncommon for the mass media to also make forecasts and provide advice to electoral candidates on how to garner more widespread support. One strategic recommendation consistently reiterated by the mass media is to enhance the digital promotion of candidates, thereby increasing their online presence. According to the media, candidates should engage more frequently on social media platforms. The argument is quite straightforward: Generation Z, who will constitute a significant portion of voters in 2024, is growing, evolving, living — and perhaps even “dying” — in the digital world. The digital realm is the ecosystem of Generation Z. To capture the attention of Generation Z, candidates must immerse themselves in their digital world. But is this advice enlightening or misleading?
Before addressing it, it is interesting to highlight a contrasting fact to the earlier advice. The level of digital presence among the three mentioned electoral candidates is inversely proportional to their popularity among Generation Z. Based solely on the number of tweets on Twitter after 2020, the sequence of social media activity from highest to lowest is Ganjar, Anies, and Prabowo. Considering this simple fact, does increasing digital activity indeed lead to a rise in a candidate’s popularity?
The “old-school” media outlets seem to be using evaluation metrics designed for assessing the pre-1996 generation when evaluating Generation Z. Being young and unbound by norms of the past — as evident in their reluctance to see the events of 1998 as their own personal experiences — Generation Z is an enigmatic and complex generation. The suggested media strategy of increasing digital presence merely shifts the Lapangan Kuru (read: battlefield) from the real world to the virtual world. Showcasing social media activities is not fundamentally different from putting up candidate billboards at intersections, just moving from traditional media to new platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and others. Ganjar, and possibly Anies, have proven that transferring the battlefield to the digital world has not yielded such a significant impact.
The problem lies in the fact that by shifting the battlefield, candidates are portraying themselves as denizens of the new media world. In other words, they emphasize that they are not distant, nor significantly different, from the Generation Z natives who have become digital citizens. However, this internalisation becomes misplaced when we consider that Generation Z has become well-versed in the patterns of the digital realm, where everything presented is mere “content”. This content is designed within the framework of discourse, showing only what they want to showcase. This is the norm of the new media world, and it is the domain of Generation Z. By trying to become digital citizens, the contestants are placed within the mould of the digital world’s norms. Generation Z, with its digital worldview, is also influenced to perceive the candidates’ presentations as intentionally crafted content. As a result, the candidates are no longer viewed as intriguing entities with the potential to be popular; they are simply seen as ordinary digital inhabitants — just like anyone else.
If there is one thing I can share as someone from East Java who moved to Jakarta for college, it is the fading of the majestic perception of the capital city, the centre of governance. The illusion of a distant, lofty, and revered government dissipates with multiple encounters with national officials — the governing figures — in Jakarta. You can find Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati (born 1962) walking in the corridors of the Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB) at the University of Indonesia (UI), or former Commander of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) Gatot Nurmantyo (born 1960) giving lectures everywhere, or even the Lady Speaker of the Parliament (DPR) Puan Maharani (born 1973) jogging in Gelora Bung Karno. Access to power feels real, and the veils of authority turn transparent. Consequently, officials who were once distant, lofty, and esteemed become mere ordinary people, “others, ordinary, and easily forgotten”.
When electoral candidates cross the boundaries into the digital realm, the tearing of such veils of distance occurs as well. The problem is that Generation Z may be completely one hundred and eighty degrees different from their predecessors. For the pre-1996 generation, veils were the norm, and the dismantling of these barriers was the goal. For Generation Z, accessibility and openness are the norm, and veils — the smoke and mirrors — are foreign concepts that may seem somewhat charming. Generation Z’s objective may not be to reinstall social and political barriers. However, the existence of veils, the presence of distance, is one of the keys to making something intriguing. The generation before 1996 was too accustomed to vast distances and sturdy socio-political walls, to the extent that a president like Joko Widodo (born 1961) unveiling the veils by mingling in narrow alleys was the epitome of purposeful expression. However, the new generation did not grow up during Suharto’s New Order (1967–98) or Sukarno’s Guided Democracy (1959–67). Consequently, it is easy to understand that they, we, also possess different sets of values.
Having said all of this, perhaps there will be — and even more likely from the previous generations — those who believe that the progressive goal of civilisation should be egalitarian openness. However, times can change beyond the comprehension of the older generation, and values evolve with it. And perhaps, or indeed, there is no way to undo that change. When you have no power to undo it, a lyric excerpt from Bob Dylan (born 1941) below might be of solace:
“[…] Come mothers and fathers throughout the land, and don’t criticise what you can’t understand, your sons and your daughters are beyond your command, your old road is rapidly agin’, please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand, for the times they are a-changin’ […]” (The Times They are a-Changin’, released in 1965 amidst the massive protests against the Vietnam War).
