Two President and VP Candidates for 2019 General Election - Photo by President Office

JAKARTA (TheInsiderStories) – The Indonesian General Election Commission is conducting a real count on the results of the Presidential Election and Parliament starting April 25 to May 22.

The accumulation of the real count showed the superiority of incumbent Joko Widodo – Ma’ruf Amin, with a votes of 56.23 percent or 71,029,379 votes against his competitor Prabowo Subianto – Sandiaga Salahuddin Uno by 43.77 percent or 55,282,221 votes.

Subianto has said would reject the vote count results of the 2019 Election carried out by the Commission because it was considered to ignore violations and fraud that occurred before, during the election and post-election.

He also said that the future of the nation is in the hands of the Commission and depends on whether the agency will allow the occurrence of electoral fraud or stop it. In fact, the former general who “baptized” the organizing party for the democratic party had committed rape on the essence of democracy.

“After we pay close attention, listen, and convince ourselves and our people that we have won the mandate from the people, we have won the mandate from the people,” concluded Prabowo, who was very confident he had won the battle to seize the throne of power from the “wong cilik” Widodo.

However, the Commission has denied the accusations that there are many incorrect data inputs that occur in the recapitulation process at every level, starting from polling stations, sub-districts, districts to provinces, and finally nationally.

The Commission claims that miscalculations and carelessness committed by irresponsible parties have been resolved, for example by conducting re-election or clarification in the vote recapitulation plenary meeting at each level.

The Commission holds that if the Subianto-Uno camp does not accept official calculations, all Election participants including the opposition must submit and prove allegations of Election fraud to the organizers, for example according to Indonesian legal procedures, to Election Watch, as mandated by Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning Elections.

In the law, it was stated that the winner of the presidential candidate pair was the one who gained more than 50 percent of the votes with at least 20 percent of the votes in each province spread in more than half the number of provinces in Indonesia.

That means, in addition to the 50 percent requirement, there is a requirement of 20 percent of the vote and more than 50 percent of the number of provinces in Indonesia.

From the temporary recapitulation, Widodo-Amin excelled in 22 provinces, including: DKI Jakarta, East Java, Central Java, Lampung, Central Java, Yogyakarta, Bali, East Nusa Tenggara, North Sumatra, East Kalimantan, West Kalimantan, Central Kalimantan, North Sulawesi, Bangka Belitung, Gorontalo, West Sulawesi, Maluku, Papua, West Papua, North Kalimantan, and Overseas.

While Subianto-Uno won in 13 provinces, including: West Java, Banten, West Nusa Tenggara, South Kalimantan, South Sulawesi, Southeast Sulawesi, Aceh, West Sumatra, Riau, Jambi, South Sumatra, North Maluku and Bengkulu.

With victory in more than half the number of provinces in Indonesia, Widodo will almost certainly occupy the second period of his administration.

However, our question, is the legitimacy of Widodo-Amin’s victory in accordance with the constitutional basis? Surely, their victory has fulfilled more than part of the constitutional demands.

But, the legality and legitimacy of victory are not only based on constitutional corridors, but more than that, how their victory must be an embodiment of the morality of the law and the intention of democracy that represents Indonesian society as a whole.

These means, if there are forms of violations of the morality of democracy and the rule of law, then that must be accounted for ethically and authoritatively according to the dignity and philosophy of the national democracy.

That cannot be taken lightly and ignored because it will be a valuable lesson for the civilization of democracy and the Indonesian state of law itself.

More than that, the opposition faction, which in this case rejected the election results by the Commission, also had to move and voice their dissatisfaction and distrust of the legitimacy of the election through existing legal bases.

It means, the manifestation of distrust is natural and valid if voiced, in the context of democratic freedom, but as a democratic legal state, Indonesia has a measure of validity and rationality of arguments in the court, or in this case it can be empirically proven before the supervisory institutions Elections.

With that, the war claiming victory or rejection of election results does not then lead to acts of anarchy and violence, so the consequences are far greater.

In addition, the narratives exhaled by opposition in the public sphere of society whose democratic civilization is still low, such as Indonesia, will also trigger a series of unexpected events from primordial fanatics who simply want to defend their camps, while ignoring order and security of the state and nation.

The incumbents and their camps should not react quickly because the rejection narrative is not a foolishness of democracy, but the opposition really understands that in democracy, there should not be only a single narrative that rejects diversity and diversity of discourses.

Therefore, the claims of Subianto – Uno’ rejection of the election results do not necessarily make the opposition a stronghold that wants to destroy the integrity of the nation, but how the state and government must also spark discourses that make the public judge that the government has smart and ethical discourses in protecting and uniting differences.

Lets learn from countries with high democracies, which spark rational discourses in the public sphere, and not just “poetic arguments”, as Richard Rorty ever said.

Written by Daniel Deha, Email: