Jokowi with Prabowo (right) after the annual People's Consultative Assembly plenary session at the Senayan legislative complex in Central Jakarta. — Antara/The Jakarta Post/ANN
OVER the course of a decade, from 2014 to the end of his term in 2024, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo has overseen significant transformations in Indonesia’s political power structure. Jokowi, initially known as a grassroots figure who rose from humble beginnings, has successfully built a political force that not only endures but also dominates.
Behind this achievement lies a meticulous and systematic strategy of power consolidation, which has drawn the attention of political analysts both domestically and internationally.
Jokowi began his administration with a foundational strategy rooted in the principle of broad coalition-building. By adopting an approach reminiscent of Lijphart’s “presidential coalition” model, Jokowi embraced major political parties such as the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), the NasDem Party and the National Awakening Party (PKB). Later on, almost all parties joined his ruling coalition.
Although his relationship with the PDI-P has since become strained, the large coalition, known as the Onward Indonesia Coalition (KIM) Plus, remains aligned with the outgoing president. This approach was not merely to secure legislative support but also to minimise potential opposition that could threaten the stability of his administration.
The coalition Jokowi built became not only the foundation of political power but also a means of reorganising political forces in Indonesia. Political analyst William Liddle once noted that “an oversized coalition has the potential to create power that is difficult to oppose”. This view was seemingly well-adopted by Jokowi, whose grand coalition has rendered the opposition increasingly weak and nearly ineffective.
In political theory, appointing trusted individuals to strategic positions is a classic move to consolidate power. Jokowi applied this strategy by placing loyal and professional figures in key roles. This aligns with the concept of “patronage politics”, where a leader ensures the continuity of power by appointing individuals with personal or political loyalty.
One of the most prominent examples is the appointment of Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan as minister. Luhut, the current coordinating maritime affairs and investment minister, is known as one of Jokowi’s most trusted allies and holds a pivotal role in Jokowi’s flagship infrastructure programmes. This demonstrates how Jokowi uses strategic appointments to control the national agenda.
Control over media and public narratives is another crucial element in Jokowi’s power consolidation strategy. Jokowi and his team have effectively used social media to shape public opinion, particularly among young voters.
Moreover, Jokowi’s adeptness in managing mainstream media is evident in how controversial issues are often subdued or reframed into narratives that benefit the government. For instance, the Nusantara Capital City project, initially met with scepticism, was successfully rebranded as a symbol of Indonesia’s progressive future vision.
Jokowi also understands the importance of maintaining strong relations with the military and law enforcement as pillars of power stability. By appointing military figures to strategic positions, including Prabowo Subianto as the defence minister, Jokowi ensures that the military remains under his control while retaining its independence.
Jokowi has also created new institutions as additional control mechanisms. The establishment of the Agency for Pancasila Ideology Education (BPIP) is a prime example of how Jokowi strengthens his influence on sensitive ideological issues. The BPIP, tasked with overseeing the implementation of Pancasila in national life, provides Jokowi with direct control over ideological discourse, which can serve as a political mobilisation tool.
In this context, Michel Foucault’s theory of “governmentality” is relevant. Jokowi governs not only through laws and regulations but also through control over the discourses and norms that shape societal behaviour. BPIP and similar institutions become crucial instruments for ensuring that narratives supporting his administration continue to dominate the public sphere.
Jokowi’s power reorganisation is also evident in the relationship between the executive branch and political parties. As president, Jokowi has successfully consolidated his power by ensuring that coalition parties remain loyal through the distribution of economic resources. This includes placing party members in strategic state-owned enterprise (SOE) positions and infrastructure projects that benefit regions controlled by coalition parties.
Jokowi uses the distribution of economic resources as a way to ensure that coalition parties remain dependent on him, thus making his power reorganization beneficial not only to his administration but also essential for maintaining the political stability needed to advance his major agendas.
Jokowi has also focused on consolidating power at the regional level. He has promoted popular programmes like village funds and social assistance to strengthen support in his voter base.
Jokowi has also strengthened his influence by supporting local leaders who share his vision. Jokowi has reorganised power at the local level, reinforcing centralised power through nationally coordinated programs. Through policies like village funds, the central government not only provides financial assistance but also increases oversight over program implementation in the regions. This step strengthens the central government’s influence over regional governments while ensuring that local leaders aligned with the central government receive greater benefits.
This concept can be seen from the perspective of Mahmood Mamdani’s theory of “decentralised despotism”, where the state consolidates its power through centralised control despite formal decentralisation. Jokowi has successfully created a mechanism where power remains centralised, even though there appears to be autonomy at the regional level. This reorganisation allows Jokowi to monitor and control local political developments that could affect national stability.
However, Jokowi’s power consolidation and reorganisation have not been without criticism. Many argue that these steps risk concentrating too much power in the hands of the executive, threatening the essential checks and balances in a democracy. Critics also note that this could create a situation where power becomes overly centralised, reducing the ability of other institutions and political parties to provide effective oversight.
Such systematic consolidation and reorganisation of power has led to democratic erosion, in which the strong government becomes less responsive to the people’s needs and more focused on securing its power. Jokowi’s legacy reflects a deep understanding of political dynamics and power control.
These measures have allowed him to solidify his power amid complex political challenges while shaping Indonesia’s political landscape into a more structured and controlled entity. However, this also raises questions about the future of Indonesian democracy. Will this model be followed by future leaders? Or will it mark the beginning of a shift toward a more centralised and less democratic political system?
Only time will tell. — The Jakarta Post/ANN
