【Report】Jokowi's Decade: How He Impacted Indonesia and the World

On November 23, 2024, the Institute of International Relations and Area Studies (IIRAS) co-hosted a conference with the Australian National University (ANU) to discuss the legacy of a former Indonesian president, Joko Widodo (colloquially referred to as Jokowi), at Ritsumeikan University (RU). Indonesia experts working in Australia, Japan, and Indonesia attended. The conference consisted of four panels, each addressing a specific theme of the Jokowi presidency.

The conference started with opening remarks by Kenki Adachi (Director of IIRAS at RU) and Julien Barbara (Director of Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs at ANU). They cherished the cooperation growing cooperation between RU and ANU.

In the first panel, Sana Jaffrey (research fellow at ANU) provided an overview of the state of Indonesian democracy based on a paper she coauthored with Eve Warburton. Jaffrey argued that the Indonesian political system is sliding into what she calls “competitive authoritarianism,” where elections are competitive but not conducted fairly. Jokowi’s election tactics revolve around buying votes by providing welfare benefits to people and putting coercive pressures on election officials to boost voter turnout. The ANU research fellow also explained surprising institutional breaks exercised by the court to protect democratic institutions. She ended her presentation with a rather grim note that the existence of competitive elections is the last thing standing against the regime change into authoritarianism.

Jaffrey’s presentation was followed by comments by the discussant, Masaaki Okamoto (Professor, Kyoto University). He asked Jaffrey questions concerning the source of Jokowi’s high public popularity, the new president Prabowo’s election strategy, and identity politics in Indonesia.

During the Q&A, the audience raised many interesting questions, such as the cause of democratic backsliding in Indonesia, possible solutions to democratic backsliding, and what Prabowo’s presidency means for the future of Indonesian democracy.

In the second panel, two presenters discussed Jokowi’s presidency and its legacy. The first presenter, Marcus Mietzner (Associate Professor, ANU), provided comprehensive assessments of Jokowi as an individual leader, drawing on interviews he conducted together with Jun Honna (Professor, RU) with Jokowi himself. Mietzner explained Jokowi’s populist self-image, his obsession with opinion polls, his view on how Indonesian democracy should be run, his obsession with infrastructure development, and his views on Indonesian foreign policy. The ANU professor concluded his presentation by arguing that Jokowi left behind few major legacies and that the only significant achievement might be putting Prabowo in place as his successor. The second presenter, Jun Honna, explored the impact Jokowi’s use of the police had on the police. Honna explained how Jokowi consolidated his power in the police by appointing loyalists in the top ranks and the backlash that resulted within the organization. He concluded that Jokowi’s legacy might be a lesson for the police regarding whether it wants to serve as a political tool.

Liam Gammon (Research Fellow, ANU) commented on Mietzner’s and Honna’s presentations. He cautioned that it is crucial not to dismiss the impact of Jokowi on Indonesian democratic institutions. He argued that the most significant legacy of Jokowi’s presidency is providing a template for future leaders to coopt and coerce political elites to their will.

During this panel’s Q&A session, the audience asked many questions regarding factions in the Indonesian police, Prabowo’s approach to the police, Indonesia’s identity on its role in the world, and whether Jokowi benefited from the absence of significant events that threatened his political rule.

After the lunch break, two presenters discussed Indonesia’s civil society and Islamism. Nava Nuraniyah (PhD candidate, ANU) explained Islamist civil society under Jokowi’s presidency. She explained how Jokowi’s approach to Islamist civil society groups incrementally evolved over the years into emphasizing coercion. She noted that despite harsh crackdowns, Islamist groups proved to be resilient. After Nuraniyah’s presentation, Solahuddin (Visiting Scholar, CSEAS) discussed Jokowi’s highly successful counterterrorism efforts. Specifically, he explained three factors that led to the dissolution of a terrorist organization, Jemaah Islamiyah, namely the targeted arrest of senior members, deradicalization, and ideological revision that took place within the organisation.

Following the two presentations, a discussant, Yuji Mizuno (Institute of Developing Economics), commented that it was striking that the repression and deradicalization Nuraniyah and Solahuddin pointed out were smooth. He asked the presenters whether the deradicalization of Indonesian Islamist groups was part of a world trend.

In the Q&A session, the audience asked various questions regarding university activist groups in Indonesia, generational change in activist groups, and the Islamist groups’ perception of the Israel-Gaza war.

In the final panel, Rizal Sukma (Senior Fellow, Centre for Strategic and International Studies) and Trissia Wijaya (senior research fellow, Ritsumeikan University) discussed Indonesia’s foreign and economic policies. Drawing on his experience as an Indonesian ambassador, Sukma argued that the core driving interests of Jokowi’s foreign policy were economic interests, such as foreign investment, exports, and tourism. Sukma, however, noted that Jokowi pursued a more assertive foreign policy to deal with COVID-19, a coup in Myanmar, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The second presenter, Wijaya, explained the political economy of nickel mining operations in Indonesia. She emphasized that nickel accounted for Indonesia’s economic growth since 2021 as it became one of the critical minerals. She proposed a concept of “licensing state” to elucidate how the government and business interests consolidate their power over nickel mining operations through an intricate system of licenses and permits, which create overlapping transactional regimes.

The discussant, Miwa Hirono (Professor, RU), commented that the two presentations signify the importance of domestic factors in explaining Indonesian foreign and economic policies. She then raised questions to each presenter. She asked Sukma how much Indonesia’s foreign policy is influenced by its membership in multilateral institutions and how Indonesia’s conception of the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP) differs from other concepts of Indo-Pacific order, such as Free and Open Indo-Pacific and Liberal International Order. Hirono asked Wijaya about local actors’ perspectives on nickel mining and their social and economic concerns. The RU professor also asked both presenters for their opinions on how Indonesia perceives the downscaling shift in China’s Belt and Road initiative and what Japan means for Indonesian foreign policy.

During this panel’s Q&A session, the audience raised questions regarding the AOIP and how the Indonesian policymakers perceive Russia and Japan.

The conference concluded with a brief remark by Marcus Mietzner. He pointed out that thinking about Jokowi’s presidency elucidates a conundrum in social science: how actors challenge and change structure. Presenters’ divergent views on Jokowi demonstrate that Indonesian experts are still grappling with the extent to which the former president changed Indonesia. Mietzner emphasized that scholars would continue to discuss Jokowi’s legacy for years to come.