Mediaboss Marketing

Donald Trump is crushing his opponents in polls of Republican voters, and will likely do the same as the caucuses and primaries begin this week. Hes running a backward-looking, grievance-driven, base-strategy campaign and the rest of the GOP is following him full on in the House, withbogus investigations in fealty to MAGA, and more mutedly in the Senate and the ever-shrinking primary campaign for second place.

But that only gets Trumps approval ratings into the low 40s, at best, and House Republicans budget-slashing campaign is even less popular. Trump will need to reach the high 40s to win the general election against Joe Biden. For that, he needs the help of reactionary centrist elites in the political establishment meaning funders, establishment media and organizations like No Labels to make him competitive. If Bidens ill-conceived support for Israels genocidal attack on Gaza should prove fatal, that, too, is partially due to reactionary centrist politics.

Aaron Huertas introduced the term "reactionary centrist" in 2018, defining the species as Someone who says theyre politically neutral, but who usually punches left while sympathizing with the right. This is related to the medias false equivalence problem, but not exactly the same thing. False equivalence is more about the institutional results of passively adhering to dysfunctional norms, while reactionary centrism is more about the active production of a distorted picture.

But the two interact with and feed each other. Both pretend to adhere to neutrality as a touchstone of virtue, while producing results that belie that claim, and that obscure or deny the asymmetrical nature of American politics, as documented in Matt Grossmann and David Hopkins 2016 book "Asymmetric Politics." (Salon review here.)

To summarize that analysis, the Democrats are a relatively pragmatic, results-oriented coalition, whose officeholders are rewarded for delivering concrete benefits to address specific social problems, while Republicans forge partisan ties based on common ideological beliefs, encouraging party officials to pursue broad rightward shifts in public policy." Therefore, the authors conclude, "Republican voters and activists are more likely than their Democratic counterparts to prize symbolic demonstrations of ideological purity and to pressure their party leaders to reject moderation and compromise."

Reactionary centrism and false balance have created their own fantasyland: Rather than preserving and building on whats best in our civic tradition, as their practitioners imagine, theyve become witless handmaids in its ongoing destruction.

Those differences have only grown more extreme since 2016, as the Democratic base grows increasingly diverse and progressive, and Republican ideology has drifted into conspiracy-theory fantasyland. Both developments can be traced to the utter failure of George W. Bushs administration particularly on national security (9/11, the Iraq war) and economics (the Great Recession). the GOPs supposed strong suits followed by the rise of the Tea Party, a reactionary movement that effectively torpedoed Barack Obamas efforts to forge a bipartisan governing consensus. That drove younger Democrats to take up more militant politics on immigration, climate, gun safety, racial justice and more in pursuit of policies that actually work, as opposed to those that might, hypothetically, draw a few votes from Senate and House Republicans.

By obscuring or denying this reality, reactionary centrism and false balance have created their own fantasyland as well. Rather than preserving and building on whats best in our civic tradition, as their practitioners might imagine, theyve become witless handmaids in its ongoing destruction, which could well come to fruition this November.

While Huertas highlighted reactionary centrism as something new, or newly visible, the longtime U.S. posture as an honest broker seeking a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine, while supporting increasingly right-wing Israeli governments in practice, reflects a similar dynamic.

To understand how and why reactionary centrism could get Donald Trump elected in 2024, we first need to understand what it is and then how it will help him in three main ways. Huertas introduced the term in the context of a crisis of lopsided political polarization in the United States, despite a strong tendency to pretend otherwise:

Opinion columnists, influential academics, and think tankers feel a need to occupy a middle ground, even if its one that is increasingly a product of their own imaginations. As a result, they wind up giving the right wing a free pass or accepting its worst impulses as a reality we have to live with, while reserving their criticism and armchair quarterbacking for anyone to their left.

On the one hand, Huertas wrote, Reactionary centrists need an intolerant left to match the intolerant right, while on the other, they tend to prop up the moderate right. Another point he makes is that Reactionary centrists think politics is about positions, not actions, which leads them to think that if only the left and right could meet in the middle, wherever that middle is, we could settle contentious debates. This not only assumes an imaginary symmetry between left and right, but also ignores the asymmetrical nature of political activism, which on the right has reached the level of insurrection and ongoing threats of violence.

Journalist Michael Hobbes spread the term on social media, defining it more pointedly: Reactionary centrism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: Leftists are about to start being authoritarians and Republicans are about to stop.

Theres also a bottom-up dimension at work. Historian Thomas Zimmer describes reactionary centrism as fueled by a pervasive anxiety among elites who are convinced that the assault on traditional authority has gone too far. I think the key to understanding not just the cancel-culture panic, but the political conflict in general is to conceptualize it as a struggle over authority a struggle between those who want to uphold traditional authority vs. those who are challenging it.

Last January, New York magazine pundit Jonathan Chait struck back in an aggrieved column that identified reactionary centrism as the lefts hot new insult for liberals, categorizing it as the latest in a series of epithets from social fascist to Cold War liberal, corporate liberal and neoliberal. Amusingly, Chait wrote a similarly outraged column in 2017 headlined How Neoliberalism Became the Lefts Favorite Insult of Liberals, which betrayed a total ignorance of that term'slong history.

This time around, Chait had problems dealing with the evidence right in front of him. Looking at the Twitter commentary, I think everyone he quoted has pointed out that he's not accurately representing their views, Huertas noted on Mastodon. Although he quoted both Huertas and Zimmer contradicting this, Chait insisted that the actual standard, and most commonly applied usage of the term was as an insult for liberals who sometimes criticize the left.

Huertas responded firmly but patiently. It's not meant as an insult, at least in my mind. It's a descriptive term about ideology and resulting communication strategy, he wrote. Further, some people who engage in reactionary centrism, including one cited in my essay, do explicitly identify as centrists. He also insisted he only meant the term to apply to bad-faith criticism, not good faith criticism, which obviously exists.

If you view yourself as a liberal but are experiencing reactionary impulses, said Thomas Zimmer, it creates an intellectual and emotional dissonance that is often resolved by declaring that which makes you uncomfortable is radical and extreme.

In this context, bad-faith arguments generally claim a position of dispassionate objectivity, but in fact appear to be driven by personal circumstance. For example, changing demographics and the social-media mean that elite white heterosexual men encounter personal pushback in ways they've never encountered before, as Thomas Zimmer discussed with sociologist Lily Mason and columnist Perry Bacon Jr. on the "Is This Democracy" podcast in December 2022. Zimmer argued that this version of centrism is not about policy positions as such, but more about self-image. If you view yourself as a liberal but are experiencing these reactionary impulses, he said, it creates a kind of intellectual and emotional dissonance that is often resolved by declaring that which makes you uncomfortable is radical and extreme.

What fundamentally defines reactionary centrism, Zimmer concluded, is this kind of sentiment: 'I feel this discomfort, I feel uncomfortable. That can't be right. So it must be the fault of these radicals. So we must must push back against this.

That kind of discomfort can be displaced onto others, Mason observed:

What they claim to do is to say, yes, I think that same-sex marriage should be legal everywhere, but there are a lot of Americans who don't believe that. And the left needs to listen to them and the left is very unpopular with these people, some imaginary group of people [who] hate the left because the left likes same-sex marriage. And therefore the left should not support same-sex marriage. I support it, but the left shouldn't.

This kind of pretzel logic works both subconsciously and pre-logically, shaping how one frames the world and ones relationship to it, which in turn determines what issues or ideas stand out as most significant. It has very little direct relationship with whats actually happening in the world. In the same conversation, Bacon sketched out the backdoor effects of political change in the Trump era:

To be a quote unquote liberal or Democrat in good standing, until about 2017, required you basically to have voted for Barack Obama, and to profess to want to have some women, LGBTQ people, people of color at your workplace like, a few. But if you ultimately said that you couldn't find a qualified one, that's OK, because you voted for Barack Obama, so obviously youre for diversity, you just haven't found the right kind yet.

In the wake of the 1619 Project and the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, things have changed. Being like, I like Barack Obama, I voted for him and I have his views on race is no longer enough in a lot of liberal environments, Bacon said.

Indeed, the backlash to the summer protests of 2020 cant be fully understood without understanding the role of reactionary centrists. When right-wing activist Christopher Rufo launched his attack on critical race theory, it was propelled by Fox News but validated by the New York Times and other liberal institutions, culminating with the Times pile-on role in ousting Harvard president Claudine Gay, which completely ignored numerous facts, including conservatives about-face on campus free speech.

Lets consider the Times role in recent elections. The Gray Ladys coverage played a much bigger role in electing Donald Trump in 2016 than Russian propaganda did, according to a study by published in the Columbia Journalism Review. As I reported in 2017:

The Times was de facto strongly biased against Hillary Clinton and in favor of Donald Trump, simply by what the paper chose to focus on. For example, over one six-day period, the Times "ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clintons emails [10] as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election.

A follow-up study last November looked at Times front-page coverage of the 2022 midterms, along with the Washington Post's, which the authors found to be less biased. But neither paper dealt with policy to any significant extent. Just 10 out of 219 front-page Times stories on domestic politics explained domestic public policy in any detail. At the Post, it was just four stories out of 215. Informing voters about policy clearly wasnt a priority at either paper, another indication of the hollowness of their claims to objectivity. The Times ran 37 articles on Republican-favored topics (crime, inflation, immigration) compared to just seven on Democratic-friendly issues like abortion and gun policy, a bias that intensified when it mattered most:

In the final days before the election, we noticed that the Times, in particular, hit a drumbeat of fear about the economy the worries of voters, exploitation by companies, and anxieties related to the Federal Reserve as well as crime. Data buried within articles occasionally refuted the fear-based premise of a piece. Still, by discussing how much people were concerned about inflation and crime and reporting in those stories that Republicans benefited from a sense of alarmthe Times suggested that inflation and crime were historically bad (they were not) and that Republicans had solutions to offer (they did not).

This is closer to reactionary centrism than to false balance, as that last sentence suggests the premise is about speaking on behalf of real Americans, however inaccurately, against the supposed extremism of the left. The Times is an institution, not an individual, but the shoe still fits: Someone who says theyre politically neutral, but who usually punches left while sympathizing with the right. The consistent subtext of Times coverage if not simply the text was that Bidens big-spending, soft-on-crime policies were a problem that Republicans had rightfully identified. The left had taken over the Democratic Party and the midterm election had helped restore balance.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Reality, of course, was quite different. The federal government has little if any short-term impact on crime rates, which in any case saw only a temporary spike during the pandemic from historic low levels. On inflation, the U.S. rate was in line with that other G7 countries and dropping dramatically by the time of the election. Given that GOP victories in five New York districts won by Biden were enough to give control of the House to Republicans, the Times coverage on these issues alone could have tipped the balance.

But the Times has a much broader reach as an agenda-setter, and the media as a whole has dramatically misrepresented the economy under Biden, which has recovered dramatically from the COVID collapse. Unemployment is lower than its been in 50 years, and prime-age (2554) employment surpassed its pre-recession peak last March, far more rapidly than the 12-year recovery from the Great Recession, when centrist economists and GOP opposition limited stimulus spending to half of what was needed, leaving millions needlessly unemployed for years for no good reason.

The consistent subtext of New York Times coverage in 2022 was that Bidens big-spending, soft-on-crime policies were a problem that Republicans had rightfully identified. The left had taken over the Democratic Party and the GOP had helped restore balance.

The medias obsession with inflation, and with fears of a recession that has never materialized, has drowned out genuine economic reporting. Mark Copelovitch, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, has been tracking media headlines throughout the Biden presidency, comparing inflation, recession, unemployment/jobs and recovery. In hismost recent update, he wrote that we're still pretzeling ourselves to explain why folks think the economy is so terrible despite all the data, and that truly astounding imbalances persisted through the end of 2023. The medias latest conventional wisdom seems to be that you cant tell people how to feel about the economy, although the media itself has been telling people how bad it is throughout the Biden presidency.

A similar but even longer narrative can be told about crime. Ever since George W. Bushs first term, Americans perceptions of rising crime rates have been utterly at odds with the real world, where crime continues to decline. The number of people actually experiencing crime is down dramatically since the 1990s even allowing for a spike related to the pandemic but the number of people who think crime is rising stays well above 50%. They dont believe that based on anything that has happened to them or their neighbors. They believe it because of mainstream media, which pretends to be objective while consistently demonizing progressives as soft on crime a key ingredient of the reactionary centrist dynamic.

So why does all this bolster Donald Trumps chances in November, assuming he makes it that far? I see three specific ways.

By its very nature, reactionary centrism works to divide Democrats, and not just pitting moderates versus progressives, as reactionary centrists might claim, but doing so unfairly, in bad faith and with wanton disregard for facts. In reality, following the Biden-Sanders Unity Taskforce program, moderates and progressives worked together to pass important legislation in Congress, even as major components were blocked by centrist darlings Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, both of whom delight in punching left. Given how popular some of the policies they blocked actually are a $15 minimum wage, universal pre-K and child care, paid parental leave, a permanent refundable child tax credit (which cut child poverty by 50%) it seems obvious that Biden and the Democrats would be a lot more popular without persistent centrist sabotage, and that the narrative that the party has moved too far left doesnt hold up.

Indeed, most of what progressives prioritize is also supported by moderates as well, if not as intensely. Reactionary centrism works to conceal that reality, highlighting divisions that are more sizzle than steak. As I wrote in October 2022, for example, the actual substance of the movement slogan defund the police, such as shifting police funding to social workers, mental health care and other social services," drew 75% support inhouseholds with a police officer in a Los Angeles-area poll.

Even the most extreme criminal justice reform activists those who identify as prison abolitionists see their advocacy and their policy proposals as part of a long political process, not a magical solution. If it werent for the work theyve been doing for decades, no one would even be talking about this option, much less supporting it. Misrepresenting and demonizing them, as reactionary centrists do, only serves to block future progress and, by the way, to undermine the kind of reality-based, pragmatic public dialogue that reactionary centrists claim to want.

Whats true of prison abolitionists is true of movement activists more generally. Their job is not to win elections, generally speaking, but to change what elections are about and ultimately to change the world by changing what we accept as normal and just. The interaction of movements and political parties is always complicated, given the nature of our political system. Reactionary centrists work to diminish and distort the value of activism, and thereby to stand in the way of genuine democratic progress. Their divisive obstructionism in 2024 could be a boon to Donald Trump.

The most serious division facing Democrats is Israels genocidal attack on Gaza, where more than 10,000 children have died so far. The official narrative of waging war to destroy Hamas was never credible, as Jewish Currents editor Peter Beinart explained on Democracy Now! in October:

You cant defeat Hamas militarily, because even if you depose it in Gaza, you will be laying the seeds for the next group of people who will be fighting Israel. We know that Hamas recruits from the families of people that Israel has killed. You need, it seems to me, to support Palestinian leaders who offer a vision of ethical resistance, not what we saw on Oct. 7, but ethical resistance, and a path to Palestinian freedom, that also means safety for Israeli Jews.

This common-sense assessment finds support among the majority of Americanswho support a ceasefire, in contrast to the political leadership of both parties who are in lockstep support of Israel, despite growing internal dissent among younger staffers both within government and outside it. This reflects the broader situation that nourishes reactionary centrism, in which an established and largely homogeneous opinion elite is challenged from below by diverse groups it finds alienating or distressing.

While the U.S. gives lip service to Palestinian rights and claims to support a two-state solution, the reality has been almost limitless support for Israel, even as it moves inexorably toward an increasingly extreme apartheid-style ethnostate. The gap between rhetoric and reality has become increasingly evident, especially to younger voters.

Theres a long tradition of the U.S. claiming to respect universal human rights but ignoring that principle whenever its convenient. Now theres a rising demand to set that right, and reactionary centrists meet that demand with panic, inflammatory rhetoric and wild accusations. There is nothing reasonable, objective or moral in what theyre doing, which is to defend genocide and aid Trump.

One serious challenge to Biden that could help Trump win is the potential promotion of a moderate third-party alternative. The most obvious threat is No Labels, a donor-driven group that pretends to represent "the commonsense majority,"basically meaning the broadly unpopular combo of modestly liberal social views and staunch economic conservatism. The No Labels sales pitch is all about image: It claims independence from both parties, portraying them as equally insular, intransigent and extreme, and claims that No Labels will give voters a choice, even though voters will play no role in choosing the groups potential presidential ticket, which could feature program-killer Joe Manchin and will have no chance of winning the election. To be blunt, its a reactionary centrists wet dream and it would only need to draw off a small percentage of voters in a few key states to hand the election to Trump.

This should be sufficient to make the point that right-wing authoritarianism is not the only threat facing American democracy this year. Without the help of reactionary centrism, Trump and his followers are likely headed for historys trash-heap. But the more Trumps moderate handmaidens muddy the political waters, the darker our future looks.

Read more

from Paul Rosenberg on politics and power

Read more:
Reactionary centrism: The toxic force that could elect Trump and kill off democracy - Salon

WASHINGTON, D.C. With a new year comes change, and voters in states across the country are dealing with laws both expanding and attacking voting and elections after a multitude of previously enacted bills went into effect on Jan. 1.

Lawmakers in Idaho took diverging paths in the fight for youth voting rights from those in Michigan and Illinois. The midwestern states both now allow for certain 16-year-olds to preregister to vote, while students in Idaho are now plagued by photo ID requirements, which are currently being challenged in court, that removed student IDs as an acceptable proof of identity.

Michiganders also now enjoy a flurry of additional expansions, including minimum drop box requirements, more than a week of early voting and the early processing of mail-in ballots. The changes were made possible by a constitutional amendment overwhelmingly approved by voters that greatly expanded voting rights in the Wolverine State.

Connecticut voters can likewise now enjoy early voting before general elections, for two weeks, thanks to a law enacted in June. Connecticut had been one of only four states along with Alabama, Mississippi and New Hampshire that did not offer in-person early voting options for all voters.

In Washington and New Mexico, state level voting rights acts (VRA) had pro-voting provisions go into effect at the start of the new year. A provision of New Mexicos VRA, which was enacted in March and features a plethora of improvements to voting and elections, now allows for New Mexicans to sign up for a permanent mail-in voting list. The list means that voters who opt in will no longer have to request a mail-in ballot for each election.

Meanwhile, Washington legislators improved on their previously existing VRA by expanding who has the right to challenge discriminatory voting practices under the law to include Native American tribes and coalitions of multiple racial or language groups.

Sections of North Carolinas dangerous and suppressive omnibus election law also went into effect on Jan. 1. Boards of elections in North Carolina are no longer permitted to accept private donations to help fund election administration, which is chronically underfunded. North Carolinians now only have until Election Day to return their mail-in ballots the previous deadline was three days after Election Day and individuals with felony convictions can no longer vote until they not only serve the duration of their prison sentence, but also serve and pay off probation and restitution.

Read about the lawsuit challenging Idahos photo ID law here.

Learn more about North Carolinas voter suppression law here.

See the rest here:
Numerous Voting and Election Changes Take Effect In States Across U.S. - Democracy Docket

Image Credit Hennie Stander

Understanding the essence of truth proves challenging, given its elusive and subjective nature. The pitfalls of politics become starkly evident when those in positions of authority, whether elected or appointed, assert an exclusive hold on what they perceive as the ultimate reality. Democracy thrives on diverse perspectives, creating a robust foundation for decision-making in the best interests of the populace. However, when those in power insist on their version of certainty as absolute, it seriously threatens the democratic fabric and raises concerns about implications for citizens under such governance.

Navigating the subjective nature of what is considered true poses a fundamental political challenge. What one group sees as undeniable, another may vehemently oppose. In a healthy democratic system, the interplay of various perspectives is essential for robust decision-making. Yet, when those in power stifle dissent and diversity of thought by claiming an unquestionable monopoly on their version of reality, it paves the way for an authoritarian mindset that undermines democracys foundations.

Democracy relies on inclusivity, tolerance, and respect for differing opinions. However, when political leaders claim an exclusive hold on their version of the truth, these democratic values are threatened. Dissent, a vital aspect of a thriving representative government, is often suppressed in such an environment. Citizens may fear expressing their views, knowing that deviation from the officially endorsed perspective could lead to marginalization or persecution.

The consequences of this erosion are multifaceted. In suppressing dissent, a government limits its ability to harness the collective wisdom of its people. Innovation, progress, and sustainable policies often arise from synthesizing diverse ideas. When a government restricts itself to a single version of certainty, it risks becoming stagnant and unable to adapt to evolving challenges.

Furthermore, the erosion of democratic values can lead to a breakdown of social cohesion. A society that does not encourage open dialogue and respectful disagreement may witness the rise of polarization and divisiveness. Alienating the populous leads to a fractured society where trust in institutions erodes and social capital dwindles.

In a political landscape where certainty is monopolized, policy-making becomes a tool for advancing a specific agenda rather than addressing the needs of the people. Decisions are made based on a predetermined version of reality, often detached from the complex and nuanced perspectives of the citizenry. This myopic approach to governance can result in policies that are not only ineffective but may also exacerbate existing societal challenges.

When political leaders believe they possess the ultimate certainty, they may resist adapting policies in response to changing circumstances. Flexibility and the ability to course-correct in light of new information are crucial aspects of effective governance. However, a government entrenched in its version of reality may find it challenging to admit mistakes or adjust policies, even when evidence suggests a different course of action.

A monopoly on certainty often manifests through the propagation of propaganda. Governments that perceive themselves as the sole arbiters of reality may manipulate information to control public perception. This can take the form of censorship, the suppression of dissenting voices, and dissemination of misleading narratives.

Propaganda not only undermines the democratic principle of an informed citizenry but also erodes trust in institutions. When a society is bombarded with a singular narrative, skepticism grows, and the credibility of official information diminishes. The long-term consequence is a populace that may become disillusioned, disengaged, and less willing to participate in the democratic process.

A healthy democracy relies on a system of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power and the monopolization of certainty. Independent institutions, a free press, and an active civil society are crucial in holding those in power accountable. When these mechanisms are weakened or dismantled, the risk of a monopoly on certainty becomes more pronounced.

The detriments of politics intensify when those in government, elected and appointed, believe they have a monopoly on reality. The subjective nature of certainty, coupled with the erosion of democratic values, has profound implications for the citizens governed by such authorities. The impact on policy-making, the dangers of propaganda, and the weakening of checks and balances all contribute to a democratic system at risk.

To safeguard the essence of democracy, fostering an environment where diverse perspectives are tolerated and actively encouraged is crucial. A government that recognizes the limitations of its own perspective and embraces the richness of a pluralistic society is better equipped to address the complex challenges of the modern world.

Here is the original post:
In Pursuit of Truth: Safeguarding Democracy Against Monopolized Realities | TDS NEWS - The Daily Scrum News

After almost two years of a brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protests, the transitional government in Chad will hold a constitutional referendum on December 17.

The referendum seeks to accomplish one main goal: ending a transition that never should have occurred. It also takes place after the government allowed a prominent political opponent back into the country after a year of exile.

According to Chads constitution, adopted in 2018, in the event of the death of a president, the president of the National Assembly should provisionally lead the country for 45 to 90 days before a new election.

When former president Idriss Dby Itno died in April 2021 in still unclear circumstances during clashes in the western Kanem province, the constitution was put aside. Upon Debys death, a military spokesman declared the government and parliament were dissolved, all borders were shut, and a transitional military council headed by Mahamat Idriss Dby Itno, one of Dby's sons, was to take over with a promise to restore civilian rule by October 20, 2022.

Months of pro-democracy demonstrations ensued, and on October 20, 2022, thousands took to the streets in NDjamena, the capital, and several other towns to protest the transitional governments decision to extend the transitional period by two years. Security forces responded to the protests with brutality, killing, injuring, or arresting scores of people. Instead of demanding accountability from the security services, the transitional government issued a general amnesty, denying victims their right to justice and reinforcing impunity.

The lead up to the referendum has been peaceful, albeit in a tightly controlled environment: political debates and talk shows were suspended during the campaign, campaigners calling for a boycott have said they were intimidated, and media outlets were warned with temporary shutdowns.

The upcoming vote is a fait accompli, and the referendum is sure to pass. But as the government moves out of transition and towards elections in late 2024, the question remains: will this new chapter herald real democracy or will it simply solidify one-party rule?

See the original post:
Will Referendum in Chad Lead to Democracy? - Human Rights Watch

Author: Ward Berenschot, University of Amsterdam

Indonesias upcoming presidential elections will be boring, despite plenty of drama on the surface. In October 2023, Indonesias Constitutional Court, headed by President Joko Jokowi Widodos brother-in-law, ruled that Jokowis son Gibran Rakabuming Raka could run for the vice-presidency.

This twist not only undermined trust in the independence of the Court, it also upset the presidential race. Frontrunning candidate Prabowo Subianto was quick to enlist Gibran as his vice-presidential candidate, a savvy move that seems to have succeeded in increasing his lead in the polls over his two rival candidates Ganjar Pranowo and Anies Baswedan. This decision also signalled that Jokowi no longer supports Ganjar, a candidate from his own party. Jokowi has chosen dynasty over party loyalty.

Yet this apparent coalition between Jokowi and Prabowo his rival in the previous two presidential elections suggests a worrisome trend that is making Indonesian politics predictable. Indonesias elections are turning into contests between interconnected elites who have similar visions for the countrys future.

When Jokowi first competed for the presidency against Prabowo in 2014, the elections really seemed to matter. As Indonesians faced a choice between a reformist former furniture salesman and a former military commander-cum-oligarch with a history of human rights offences, the fate of Indonesias democracy hung in the balance. Yet after another polarising election in 2019, Jokowi appointed Prabowo as his minister of defence. This not only boosted Prabowos electoral changes, but also ensured that Jokowi would not face any real opposition during his second term in office.

During his second term, Jokowis dominance deepened the long-standing tendency of Indonesias political parties to avoid oppositional roles. Indonesias political parties prefer the perks and patronage associated with being in power. In 2021, Jokowi had the support of seven out of nine parties represented in parliament, jointly holding 81 per cent of the seats. Jokowi also consolidated the support of Indonesias economic elites by making them ministers in his cabinet. As Indonesias political and economic elites fell in line behind Jokowi, the newspapers and television channels they owned followed suit and adopted a remarkably uncritical stance towards the President.

The consolidation of power by a relatively small and interconnected clique of political and business elites facilitated a gradual yet sustained crackdown on critical civil society voices. This process involved legislative efforts to regulate civil society and disband organisations deemed in opposition with Indonesias state ideology of Pancasila, which sees its citizens equal in rights and duties regardless of ethnicity or religion. These efforts extended to undermining independent checks and balances. In 2019, a law was adopted which placed the corruption eradication commission, the Corruption Eradication Commission, under political tutelage.

This move sparked student protests across the country, leading Jokowis government to extend its use of repressive techniques making arbitrary arrests, intimidating dissidents and threatening university student expulsions. There are also indications that ruling politicians have hired anonymous cyber troops to promote government policies and harass online critics. The suppression of civil society voices has been felt across the country. Police violence and arrests of community leaders are regularly used to suppress protests of rural communities against companies taking their land. According to a recent poll, upwards of 62 per cent of Indonesians say that they are afraid to express their political opinions. As such, observers commonly view Indonesias democracy as regressing.

This consolidation of power is shaping the character of the upcoming presidential elections. Anies Baswedan, who is running an opposition campaign, has regularly called for change. His campaign has been targeted in various ways. Entrepreneurs who donated money to Anies campaign, have had their tax returns especially scrutinised. Politicians associated with Nasdem, a political party supporting Anies, were suspected of corruption.

The main contest in the upcoming elections, then, involves two candidates closely tied to the current government. Ganjar Pranowo is the governor of Central Java and a staunch supporter of Jokowis presidency. His running mate, Mahfud MD, is a minister in Jokowis cabinet. Their opponent, Prabowo, is the Minister of Defence in Jokowis cabinet. His running mate, Gibran Rakabuming, is relatively inexperienced but seems to have been chosen primarily to signal to voters that Prabowo has the support of the current president and Gibrans father.

Both Ganjar and Prabowo have made active efforts to present themselves as Jokowis heir. Prabowo is winning this contest after having made Gibran his vice-presidential candidate. Unsurprisingly, Jokowi tried to broker a coalition between Prabowo and Ganjar. Both candidates originate from the same ruling elite, they offer similar pro-business electoral programs and they both seek to uphold Jokowis policies.

Owing to the dominance of candidates associated with Jokowis government, there has been little critical debate about Jokowis policies. Election campaigns are important occasions to discuss such dilemmas, yet there has been very little debate about whether Indonesias current government has benefited Indonesians. Instead, most reporting on the elections has focused very narrowly on the personal dramas of who gets selected for the vice-presidency and how that affects opinion polls.

The more interesting story is what the presidential race tells us about the evolution of Indonesias democracy. Comparable candidates promising continuity, a weakened civil society and the relative absence of public debate about important dilemmas benefit the political and business elites currently in power. But such elections are unlikely to benefit Indonesian citizens. Without a meaningful choice and a strong opposition, the upcoming elections are unlikely to discipline the elites currently in power.

Ward Berenschot is Professor in Comparative Political Anthropology at the University of Amsterdam and Senior Researcher at the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies.

Read more from the original source:
Indonesias increasingly opposition-less democracy - East Asia Forum